Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws

[Aractus]

Hello Rhythm, let me pick apart your post, and find where the divergence lies...

It should be noted that Lindzen is not a skeptic of AGW, but of catastrophic AGW.

Incorrect, although I see how you reached this conclusion. Like 99% of sceptics, he believes that the GW trend is real, and also believes that the EGHG's may have a small contribution. His view is that the trend is probably naturally derived.

It should also be noted that his major publication on the subject has been discredited and that he himself, after reviewing the criticism offered to it, conceded that he had handled his data very poorly, leading to fundamental flaws in his competing theory.

You don't need a "competing theory"... it isn't a competition. You simply evaluate the scientific theory at hand. Whether his specific theory is discredited or not has zero relevance to whether AGW is credible or not.

(1) The evidence for AGW is not low, it is phenomenally robust.

Is it? Shall we test this thesis? ...

(2) Not only do we have the data that shows the warming trend, (3) we understand why our activities have this effect. (4) We also understand how the same trend can be accomplished in the absence of our activities (which has happened in the past), and in understanding this we can conclude that those parameters have not been met in the present. (5) IOW, of all of the things that we know -can- be a cause for this sort of warming (the list is long), the only thing operating right now at any demonstrable level is human activity.

OK.
1. If the evidence and the science is robust, then show me what the global climate change trend over the last 150 years would be without human activity? Where's the graph that shows the recreated anthropogenic-free climate change over the last 15 decades?
2. Actually the data shows the raw global mean surface temperatures, many of which get adjusted (normalized) before being given to climate scientists, much of the original raw data is now unverifiable/unavailable. It is generally accepted that the data shows a clear 0.7 degree warming trend in the 20th century, but the data itself, says nothing it's just data.
3. Do we? Show me the exact breakdown of the GHE then. H2O 90%, 95%? Can you really pin it down exactly? CO2 absorbs nearly all the IR in its absorption window, thus you need much more CO2 to increase the effect, no? Where is the evidence for positive-feedback?
4. Again, if we understand it so well show me the trend without anthropogenic EGHE's, thanks.
5. Try again. What caused the MWP? Hint - some say that their computer models reproduce it using solar activity, but Mann is certain that the MWP was localized and not global, who is right?

There is still plenty of room for skepticism with regards to projections and predictions made by any particular body concerning the effects of AGW, but AGW itself is simply an expression of chemistry and physics. Certain gases have certain effects - this is a demonstrable reality. We are releasing those gases into our atmosphere - this is a demonstrable reality. As we release those certain gases into our atmosphere we have noticed a warming trend - this is a demonstrable reality.

And as I've pointed out, CO2 already manages to catch the vast majority of the IR that it is capable of absorbing, it would absorb barely any more CO2 if you trebled the level! How can it keep producing more and more warming without more and more IR absorption????

[popeyespappy]

1. If the evidence and the science is robust, then show me what the global climate change trend over the last 150 years would be without human activity? Where's the graph that shows the recreated anthropogenic-free climate change over the last 15 decades?

Ask and ye shall receive.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm

2. Actually the data shows the raw global mean surface temperatures, many of which get adjusted (normalized) before being given to climate scientists, much of the original raw data is now unverifiable/unavailable. It is generally accepted that the data shows a clear 0.7 degree warming trend in the 20th century, but the data itself, says nothing it's just data.

Who normalizes what and what exactly is it that you think is unavailable?

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 preexisting data archives.

http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

NASA, NOAA, Hadley and 13 other datasets are available for you to look at if you so desire. Climate change skeptic Richard Muller at Berkley already has in the Koch funded Berkley Earth Temperature Study. His conclusion was that the temperature models are correct and anthropogenic green house gasses are the reason for the warming.

[Aractus]

Ask and ye shall receive.

That graph is perfect. Thank you.

It proves without a shadow of a doubt that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth. The climate alarmists keep telling me there's a 0.6-0.7 deg rise in global mean surface temperature, and that the trend is attributable solely to anthropogenic activity. Yet the graph tells me that until 1960 the trend is entirely naturally derived, thus anthropogenic influence has caused the temperature to rise just 0.3 degrees or so. Now do you see the problem with the anthropogenic theory?

[popeyespappy]

I see you seeing only that which you wish to see.

[Aractus]

I see the fact that the climate modelling still reproduces the first 100 years of the 150 years without anthropogenic influence, what do you see?

[popeyespappy]

I see it took more than 100 years to accumulate enough CO2 in the atmosphere to discern the signal from the noise.

[Aractus]

Okay, what you and I just said is basically the same thing, so for simplicity let's just say I'll agree with your statement verbatim.

I see it took more than 100 years to accumulate enough CO2 in the atmosphere to discern the signal from the noise.

Why do climate alarmists tell us that the WHOLE 150 year trend is due to anthropogenic influence on EGHG levels?

OK, next question.

Computer modelling in 2011 produced by NASA (sorry don't have the link on hand), attributes anthropogenic CO2 to less than 50% of the cause to the current trend. 47% to be precise. The rest is made up of Methane, Black Carbon and CFC's (though the CFC's are very minor). Others have reproduced similar results in their modelling.

Michael Mann, Tim Flannery, and the rest of the climate-enthusiast lunatics, keep saying we need to "act now", and they are always targeting CO2 (not methane or black carbon). Now you have to understand that if we are causing some amount of global climate change, and we understand the amount that we are causing (which we don't know, but for argument's sake I'll assume we do know), knowing this I simply as this ...

Australia emits 1.34% of the world's CO2. CO2 is 47% attributable to the global warming trend. So Australia contributes 0.63% of the global warming trend overall. Why should we - Australians - want to cut our CO2 emissions that make fuck all difference to global warming? Gillard calls it "CO2 pollution", I nearly choke when repeating those words, surely there is real pollution and environmental issues that we could address instead of trying to cut CO2????

IF by 2050 we fuck up our entire economy by reducing our 2000 emission levels by 20%, then we will have achieved the result of slowing global warming by 0.126%, correct? How the FUCK is that value for money? Can you even measure 0.126% (of course you can't).

Furthermore if the entire world works together and reduces their 2000 level CO2 emissions by 20% by 2050, then we will have - according to the modelling - reduced the impact of climate change by 9.4%, that's the difference between a 3 degree rise in temperature and a 2.7 degree rise in temperature. How is that value for money?

[pocaracas]

IF by 2050 we fuck up our entire economy by reducing our 2000 emission levels by 20%, then we will have achieved the result of slowing global warming by 0.126%, correct? How the FUCK is that value for money? Can you even measure 0.126% (of course you can't).

Furthermore if the entire world works together and reduces their 2000 level CO2 emissions by 20% by 2050, then we will have - according to the modelling - reduced the impact of climate change by 9.4%, that's the difference between a 3 degree rise in temperature and a 2.7 degree rise in temperature. How is that value for money?

That sounds like a good excuse to reduce it by 80%, instead of a measly 20%!

You know, atmospheric CO2 doesn't just cause global warming...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
And this is a much bigger problem than 3 degree increase in world temperature.

[Aractus]

The very first line of that Wikipedia article is wrong. Even if there was no anthropogenic CO2 at all, CO2 levels would still be increasing.

[pocaracas]

The very first line of that Wikipedia article is wrong.

Well then, the very first line is "wrong"... hence everything is "wrong"...

How about a NationalGeographic link?

And Nature?

And Reuters?

Even if there was no anthropogenic CO2 at all, CO2 levels would still be increasing.

How can you be so sure?
That's not what the plot that popeyespappy posted shows.