GORE, Caught Lying really really badly... Desperately pathetic in fact. WAKE UP

[Akrasia]

You've put me in handy little basket for yourself, so which "side" am I on? Indeed which "side" are you on? Who are "my friends"? i don't remember joining a team. By your logic and your tone, Al Gore is "your friend" and and on "your side" as is John Gibbons. You gave out about people always talking about Al Gore when he's nothing to do with you (your unwanted "Champion") and you've demonstarted exactly the same mentality.

Yeah, I had you pegged for a social democrat and an environmentalist.

All your posts outlining your support for progressive taxation and redistributive social policies make that clear.

I'd love to see your pos rep list (before it was removed) I bet a thousand dollars that you got pos rep mutliple times from the same 5 or 6 posters on this forum and that you in turn pos repped them back.

You're in a clique of right wing conspiracy theorist climate change denialists on this site, and all your moaning and whinging about al gore isn't going to change that.

You can extricate yourself from that clique by criticising some of the many many many inaccuracies in their posts, but I'd say you're happy enough to stay in with them,

[myksav]

lol

Al Gore!

Politician!
Uber-rich guy!
Scientific talking-head!

Conflate that!

It's obvious -the green 'movement' --oops, I mean 'science', has become throughly corrupted and politicised in the extreme. Climategate has been a terrible shock to many now ex-greens, though it merely confirmed what the guy on the street already knew/intuited.

Al Gore. Who is Al Gore? Is he a qualified environmental scientist? No. And is scientifically irrelvelant.
As has been noted before, it's those who are unwaverlingly against the idea of climate change keep mentioning Al Gore. Those who think climate change is happening don't even think of Al Gore.
Al Gore had a 'movie' made. I haven't seen even one second of it. He's made speeches, I haven't heard a word out of any of them.
Al Gore is irrevelant in the discourse on climate change.

Now, if Al Gore made a movie or gave speeches on what it is like to be Vice President of the USA, then I'd have a look and listen. In that, he's qualified.

There you go, a post entirely on Al Gore, the ex-VP of the US and non-scientist.

[ibis]

The theory of anthropogenic climate change certainly uses the rubric of science very effectively but it's not a product of science in the same way that space travel, the world wide web, and neurosurgery are. It's actually conceptually closer to the kind of economic theory that similarly attempts to form a hypothesis based on the modelling of almost infinitely complex phenomenal systems.

In fact, that's not the case. The basics of climate change are very straightforward - CO2 increases the warming of the atmosphere, which has been known since 1896, and that in turn will increase the amount of water vapour, which will also increase the temperature of the atmosphere. The effect of those feedbacks on other feedbacks are all known through perfectly standard scientific investigation.

What you're actually referring to are the predictions of specific effect, such as "temperature will increase by such and such an amount for such and such an addition of CO2". Even those, however, are unlike economic models, because economic models deal with intelligent actors who can (and do) apply the knowledge of the models to the system being modelled, and whose reaction to a change in economic circumstances is inherently unpredictable as a result. CO2 doesn't seek arbitrage opportunities, and provides, for a certain concentration, a known and invariable amount of forcing.

Such models are routinely used in virtually every branch of science, from chemistry through astrophysics to population biology. It's always possible to say that the state of knowledge is insufficient to permit modelling to be worthwhile, but the proof of the pudding would seem to be in whether the models can reproduce observations:



Given that the models do reproduce observations rather well - as they do - it seems to me that you need to fall back on the view that either the models or the data are 'fixed' to allow the reproduction of observations, or that it's essentially the result of lucky guesswork. The latter we should rationally discard on the basis that you're talking about literally tens of thousands of runs of different models - the former requires an enormous global conspiracy of silence. Which are you going for?

[The Caped Cod]

Yeah, I had you pegged for a social democrat and an environmentalist.

All your posts outlining your support for progressive taxation and redistributive social policies make that clear.

I'd love to see your pos rep list (before it was removed) I bet a thousand dollars that you got pos rep mutliple times from the same 5 or 6 posters on this forum and that you in turn pos repped them back.

You're in a clique of right wing conspiracy theorist climate change denialists on this site, and all your moaning and whinging about al gore isn't going to change that.

You can extricate yourself from that clique by criticising some of the many many many inaccuracies in their posts, but I'd say you're happy enough to stay in with them,

You've obviously got it all figured out, what with your telepathic ability. So I'm part of a RIght WIng Conspiracy am I? And I could prove that I'm not if I agree with you?

You're a paranoid hyprocrite and you wonder why people don't agree with you. Yet again you've shown yourself to be exactly the same as the people you criticise.
"You're this", "we're that"! And you wonder why people won't listen to you. Now you could show you're not just zealous idiot parroting today's truth if you admitted that you know nothing about me, and admitt I have never once said AGW is not real or man-made, but I think you're happier with your head up your àrse, shouting things like "Denier" and confiming the stereotype of "Cultists" attributed to those who support AGW theory.
You're P.ie's John Gibbons.

[Mouroux]

Gropenhagen is falling apart, despite all the hype, private jets, private escorts, streams of limos....

And despite all of the bet wetters shrieking desperately and bringing in their 'stars' to be worshiped... Al, Arnie...

pathetic!

Of course we can't underestimate fanatics. This was but one way to win or lose --I'm sure there are 49 other ways.

[Tombo]

In fact, that's not the case. The basics of climate change are very straightforward - CO2 increases the warming of the atmosphere, which has been known since 1896, and that in turn will increase the amount of water vapour, which will also increase the temperature of the atmosphere. The effect of those feedbacks on other feedbacks are all known through perfectly standard scientific investigation.

What you're actually referring to are the predictions of specific effect, such as "temperature will increase by such and such an amount for such and such an addition of CO2". Even those, however, are unlike economic models, because economic models deal with intelligent actors who can (and do) apply the knowledge of the models to the system being modelled, and whose reaction to a change in economic circumstances is inherently unpredictable as a result. CO2 doesn't seek arbitrage opportunities, and provides, for a certain concentration, a known and invariable amount of forcing.

Such models are routinely used in virtually every branch of science, from chemistry through astrophysics to population biology. It's always possible to say that the state of knowledge is insufficient to permit modelling to be worthwhile, but the proof of the pudding would seem to be in whether the models can reproduce observations:



Given that the models do reproduce observations rather well - as they do - it seems to me that you need to fall back on the view that either the models or the data are 'fixed' to allow the reproduction of observations, or that it's essentially the result of lucky guesswork. The latter we should rationally discard on the basis that you're talking about literally tens of thousands of runs of different models - the former requires an enormous global conspiracy of silence. Which are you going for?

I don't think you get it.

What you have exhibited there shows that these GCMs have been built to explain how rising CO2 is responsible for most of the 0.7 degree increase in temperature.

So, by design, if you remove CO2 they simulate lower temperatures.

That fact that they track past temperatures is irrelevant and does not give any information about how correctly they model the actual climate. For that you need to test their forecasting abilities.

And that is attrocious. Just ask Kevin Trenberth.

[myksav]

Gropenhagen is falling apart, despite all the hype, private jets, private escorts, streams of limos....

And despite all of the bet wetters shrieking desperately and bringing in their 'stars' to be worshiped... Al, Arnie...

pathetic!

Of course we can't underestimate fanatics. This was but one way to win or lose --I'm sure there are 49 other ways.

Copenhagen, whatever the outcome will not prevent various Gov'ts from bringing in a tax that will be "based" on carbon. Which tax is the driving force behind much of the anti-climate change band.

Most of the shrieking is actually coming from the anti-climate change people.

You're right about the fanatics though, Tombo , SAT and ilk do keep shrieking fanatically against the idea of climate change.

It wouldn't be so bad if they came out with actual scientific data which negates the data that is pointing toward excessive levels of climate change. But all they do is shriek "it's not true, it's not true". Like children who are told the tooth-fairy doesn't exist.

[Wakeupcall]

Hmm... What if they desperately need to impose the carbon tax and cap n trade ASAP. Maybe they know there is a cooling period on the way and they need to take credit for it somehow.

This is quite likely in my opinion.

[Mouroux]

Akrasia:


You posit "a clique of right wing conspiracy theorist climate change denialists on this site."

--but wouldn't that in and of itself constitute a conspiracy? So you, in actual fact, posit a conspiracy!

Are they out to 'get' you?

[Akrasia]

You've obviously got it all figured out, what with your telepathic ability. So I'm part of a RIght WIng Conspiracy am I? And I could prove that I'm not if I agree with you?

You're a paranoid hyprocrite and you wonder why people don't agree with you. Yet again you've shown yourself to be exactly the same as the people you criticise.
"You're this", "we're that"! And you wonder why people won't listen to you. Now you could show you're not just zealous idiot parroting today's truth if you admitted that you know nothing about me, and admitt I have never once said AGW is not real or man-made, but I think you're happier with your head up your àrse, shouting things like "Denier" and confiming the stereotype of "Cultists" attributed to those who support AGW theory.
You're P.ie's John Gibbons.

Sorry The Caped Cod. It is wrong of me to categorise you so so quickly.

Recently I have only really been participating in this section of the site (don't have time to get involved in other debates) and I wrongly accused you of being a single minded agenda driven poster when you do contribute to a lot of other threads on this site and do make a valuable contribution.

I take back what I said about you in particular.

Still think you're wrong in a lot of things you say about global warming, but I shouldn't have made it personal.