Global warming fraud heads to court!

[Camhawk88]

Is anyone else having trouble with this statement?

Einstein's statement is quite clear, and doesn't need reinterpretation, but I'll try it for you.

"If a billion experiments prove me right, and one proves me wrong, then I am wrong." OK? I typed it slowly for you...

CAGW is the Hypothesis, and it has been proven wrong. Not just once, either.

Tim

Obviously you are having trouble with this statement-

I did not reinterpret the statement- as you pointed out it doesn't need interpretation. Having said this yourself you then go on to reinterpret it.

The reason you have typed it slowly is anyones guess- mine is you have poor computer skills, it still reads the same.

NOw if you go back and re-read what I wrote you might see that I was saying the same thing writen differently. -
Something can be proven to be wrong in science (it only takes one experiment to prove me wrong) but not absolutely proven to be right (no amount of experiments can prove me right). Now Im sure you can see this is what Einstein was saying? Hence science is a process of dispelling what is wrong rather than proving what is right.

You see Timi- what I said and what you said are the same thing, with the same meaning.

[TimiBoy]

Timiboy you said the troposphere is cooling. That was actually debunked in 2005, the data from the satellite was proved inconclusive because it started taking readings in the early 90's at the equator at 2pm everyday. By the late 90's the orbit of the satellite had degraded and all the readings were being taken at 5pm. But of course the skeptics didn't say this when they told you the troposphere is cooling did they. I guess the argument that the troposphere is cooling suited there denial better.

Both Lindzen (testified to Congress 17 Nov 2010, hardly a crackpot) and Spencer have been demonstrating (you know, showing data, proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it) vastly reduced Climate sensitivity (compared to model hypotheses) and issues with the disparity between satellite (tropospheric) and terrestrial measurements right up to the near present, well after 2005.

Are they the same satellite errors (the ones you mention) that NOAA is insisting have not greatly infected the Global Temperature Record? I'm not sure, because I just read the science, usually, and not the finger pointing.

Cheers,

Tim

[Camhawk88]

I really don't need any pointing out that a lot of science is guesswork..well aware of that and that is why I am adamant I recognise none of it unless it is proven fact.

Ok one more time then Im done hitting my head against a brick wall.

Assumptions do not equal guesswork. Assumptions are based on available data that can be used to test a hypothesis. Assumptions are based on data with the recognition that they may not hold true 100% of the time. For example- we will assume the growth rates for fish remain constant. or we will assume the growth rate will follow an exponential curve etc, etc. In most cases this may hold true but there will be some cases in which an individual will deviate from this.

Now by carrying out the experiments using the assumptions and looking at results and comparing them back with observations and with enough constants to work within, then eventially the assumptions being made can be either disproven or be found to be valid (often 95% or 99% confidence limits). They will also identify individual cases (ie the fish that grows twice as fast as the rest of the school) where the assumption did not apply- these are known as outliers.

So what you are saying is you will not recognise ANY science as it is not proven fact. Thats fine Pinhead but you and me both will be a long time under the ground before anyone can ever absolutely proove anything about a system as complex as the atmosphere under your constraints.

[TimiBoy]

Ok one more time then Im done hitting my head against a brick wall.

Yep, I feel the same way. But your diatribe regarding "assumptions" ignores the truth. It only takes one experiment to bring the whole "truth" crashing down. Quite a few experiments have done that. Not using assumptions, using data.

Usually that's not such an issue in Science, but there is so much invested in Climate "Science" that to let it fall is going to cost too many people their jobs, too many Governments a Holy Grail of Tax Opportunity, too many Universities their reputations, and the UN it's agenda of removing Property Rights. The only conspiracy in this is that it suits so many to pursue the same objective.

Tim

[Camhawk88]

Yep, I feel the same way. But your diatribe regarding "assumptions" ignores the truth. It only takes one experiment to bring the whole "truth" crashing down. Quite a few experiments have done that. Not using assumptions, using data.



Tim

My 'diatriabe' is ignoring nothing. It is explaining one of the foundations of the scientific method. I have made no comment on the rights or wrongs of the global warming/climate change hypothesis. I was merely trying to clear up a misunderstanding of the way that science is conducted- it would seem I have been wasting my time with people such as yourself who will only see it as an attack on their beliefs.

Oh and if you actually get a hold of the paper regarding the experiment 'that has brought the truth crashing down'- you will find assumptions have been made and they should be stated in the methods section. If they are not there then you can be fairly certain that there are major gaps in the science and it is more than likely a 'built to measure' experiment that you accuse the other side of doing to hold up their argument (which I admit certainly happens on both sides of the ledger).

[MorganK]

Both Lindzen (testified to Congress 17 Nov 2010, hardly a crackpot) and Spencer have been demonstrating (you know, showing data, proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it) vastly reduced Climate sensitivity (compared to model hypotheses) and issues with the disparity between satellite (tropospheric) and terrestrial measurements right up to the near present, well after 2005.

Are they the same satellite errors (the ones you mention) that NOAA is insisting have not greatly infected the Global Temperature Record? I'm not sure, because I just read the science, usually, and not the finger pointing.

Cheers,

Tim

I was hoping you would bring those two names up.


Lindzen, yes is not a crackpot but he has not produced one peer reviewed journal on the subject.

Let me link you to these websites and some others, I don't agree with everything said in it but they all convey a pretty skeptical view of his findings.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...hol-testimony/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...hoi-unraveled/

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

Spencer on the other hand has a less unbiased and untainted view but this is his most recent update from the satellite based readings he uses, so dont tell me he is showing hard data against the climate change debate, his own graph shows a 0.42 degree increase from 1979 till last month.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Spencer disagrees with the sensitivity of the models, but it was his own satellite and balloon experiment which was wrong that made him come out and say the troposphere is cooling. Here is his admission that the data he received was wrong.

According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.

"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

Enough said, Spencer admitted that his skepticism towards the issues with the disparity between the satellite data and terrestrial data were based on his flawed satellite data.

Id quote you the NY times article but you need an account to read it more than once.

[TimiBoy]

I was hoping you would bring those two names up.


Lindzen, yes is not a crackpot but he has not produced one peer reviewed journal on the subject.

Let me link you to these websites and some others, I don't agree with everything said in it but they all convey a pretty skeptical view of his findings.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...hol-testimony/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...hoi-unraveled/

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

Spencer on the other hand has a less unbiased and untainted view but this is his most recent update from the satellite based readings he uses, so dont tell me he is showing hard data against the climate change debate, his own graph shows a 0.42 degree increase from 1979 till last month.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Spencer disagrees with the sensitivity of the models, but it was his own satellite and balloon experiment which was wrong that made him come out and say the troposphere is cooling. Here is his admission that the data he received was wrong.



http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

Enough said, Spencer admitted that his skepticism towards the issues with the disparity between the satellite data and terrestrial data were based on his flawed satellite data.

Id quote you the NY times article but you need an account to read it more than once.

Yep, an excellent list of websites, which consistently rely on ad hominem attacks, deny the reality of massive funding for the AGW funpark while maintaining the joke of "Big Oil". None of them permit a Skeptic to comment, they routinely ban contributors who disagree with them (including me), they actively cherry pick and practice alarmist dogma.

Sorry, I've read them backwards, and their credibility is off the chart, as is that of those that read their Gospel.

Tim.

[TimiBoy]

And sorry, Linzen has published hundreds of papers regarding various atmospheric fields (him being an Atmospheric Physicist and all), but it's OK, let's just toddle off to our favourite Alarmist site and believe everything (or most of) they say. Obviously Congress decided to question him because he doesn't know anything, and he should up his dose of Prozac (if he takes it). They are just totally into questionning folks who fit the "crackpot category."

"Playing the man" it's called. The refuge of the weak or the weak minded. Or, Oh no, sorry, his title is not "Climate Scientist" so he's not qualified. Of course there are lots of folks we can lump into that category. Al Gore boil your potatoes, does he?

Seriously, believe what you want. Throw in your "this is my last word" remarks; but I will not ever, ever stop working to expose, in my own small way, this Climate Cult for what it is.

Garbage.

Tim

[Steeler]

It would be naive to think big business does not fund groups or pollies to debunk climate change.

[PinHead]

My 'diatriabe' is ignoring nothing. It is explaining one of the foundations of the scientific method. I have made no comment on the rights or wrongs of the global warming/climate change hypothesis. I was merely trying to clear up a misunderstanding of the way that science is conducted- it would seem I have been wasting my time with people such as yourself who will only see it as an attack on their beliefs.

Oh and if you actually get a hold of the paper regarding the experiment 'that has brought the truth crashing down'- you will find assumptions have been made and they should be stated in the methods section. If they are not there then you can be fairly certain that there are major gaps in the science and it is more than likely a 'built to measure' experiment that you accuse the other side of doing to hold up their argument (which I admit certainly happens on both sides of the ledger).

don't you think we might already know that?

so who started this so called science on this man made global warming bit?
seems like the entire cataclysmic event is the fault of CO2...there is so much fuzzy stuff being bandied about..between CO2 and global warming and the greenhouse effect..and water vapour is as big a culprit..but we cannot charge anyone for that.

to all the scientists out there..one question..what was the median maximum temp of the planet between the last 2 ice ages???

[finga]

What global warming??
We were thinking about lighting the fire tonight.
It's been chilly the last few weeks and to think summer is just around the corner.

Is this global warming supposed to make rain or dry it up??

[TimiBoy]

It would be naive to think big business does not fund groups or pollies to debunk climate change.

You're right there Steeler. But it's funny the way an Alarmist will shrilly decry a "Denier" as "funded by Big Oil", while the amount of money pouring into the pro CAGW racket just so totally, utterly and completely dwarfs the amount spent on the skeptic camp. Billions versus millions.

Tim

[TimiBoy]

What global warming??
We were thinking about lighting the fire tonight.
It's been chilly the last few weeks and to think summer is just around the corner.

Is this global warming supposed to make rain or dry it up??

No, but now the Pottsdam Institute says it will cause colder Winters in Europe...

Seriously. Even though a couple of years ago all the Euro crazies were saying snow was a thing of the past, now they are having to change their conclusions to match reality.

True story. Though I'm sure many will find a way to rationalise such duplicity. Such is the way with Religious Fanaticism.

Cheers,

Tim

[Steeler]

Its easier to buy a congressman than it is to buy a can of coke.

Anyways gotta go my daughter has a stand by the beds room inspection,geez she's high maintenance.

[MorganK]

And sorry, Linzen has published hundreds of papers regarding various atmospheric fields (him being an Atmospheric Physicist and all), but it's OK, let's just toddle off to our favourite Alarmist site and believe everything (or most of) they say. Obviously Congress decided to question him because he doesn't know anything, and he should up his dose of Prozac (if he takes it). They are just totally into questionning folks who fit the "crackpot category."

"Playing the man" it's called. The refuge of the weak or the weak minded. Or, Oh no, sorry, his title is not "Climate Scientist" so he's not qualified. Of course there are lots of folks we can lump into that category. Al Gore boil your potatoes, does he?

Seriously, believe what you want. Throw in your "this is my last word" remarks; but I will not ever, ever stop working to expose, in my own small way, this Climate Cult for what it is.

Garbage.


Tim

Did i say he has never published anything? No i didn't, obviously he's published articles and journals on his chosen field which is not what we were talking about. He has never published any peer reviewed article or journal on the disparity between the satellite data and the terrestrial data.

You have not once in this whole post shown any evidence that global climate change is a fake.