Frank
Statements like this that attempt to characterise my position are transparent.
You characterise your own position very well Frank.
The points I have raised, even the polar bear, all support my position as a skeptic. Everything that the AGW lobby, while being "far from unanimous" has to say or contribute to the HYSTERIA, can and has been challenged by reputable scientists using the same data.
Oh really? Your points consist of anecdotal evidence (polar bears), misunderstandings (water vapour) fallacious arguments (the UN proved AGW) or supposed faults in a handful of papers, typically older ones (the HS).
- You ignore the vast majority (your own references agree) of scientists agree with AGW.
- You ignore that there is no credible alternative explanantion.
- You ignore things like CO2 solubility are actually already in the calculations supporting AGW (although the use of Glassman tries hard to make it look like this has been overlooked, it hasn't).
- You ignore that the papers typically attacked by AGW cycnics are normally old, and that more recent papers reaching the same general conclusions are generally ignored by AGW cynics (if you read only AGW cynics you would think Mann's graph was the end of the argument, such is the distorted view normally given).
- You ignore the evidence casting reasonable doubts on the credibility of many anti-AGW scientists.
- You ignore people who attack AGW data like the HS saying things like 'even if the HS is wrong 2xCO2 is a problem'.
I never advanced the 10 myths as an absolute position of mine firstly,
No, you advanced them to support your argument and then when they were questioned ignored that some of the arguements supporting your position were of questionable validity.
That hardly displays genuine engagement in a discussion.
Aren't the 'facts' supporting your postion important to you? Why is crying 'well, they're not MY positon even though I quoted them' a more attractive propostion to you than accepting your research wasn't up to scratch? As some of those claims you posted are DEFINATIVELY FALSE (like the one stating sea-levels have not risen nor have polar temperatures) it seems refusing to admit error is the most important thing for you. Not the facts.
secondly nowhere have you proved those myths to be erroneous! You merely dismissed them as lies.
Why mischaracterise what I said when by going back a few pages any idiot can see that is what you are doing?
Actually, as the pro-AGW arguments (the so-called myths) are what YOU are trying to prove erroneous, it is YOU who need to prove they the myths are erroneous. I have been showing that the claims made by AGW cycnics are erroneous or fallacious. Simple, eh?
To condense the 'myths' you listed and prevent you having to go back a few pages, and show that YOU are lying by saying "You merely dismissed them as lies.";
You claim "Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate." is a myth.
I have posted data showing temperatures ARE rising at unprecidented rates. You need to show the data is in error (no, not Mann again, his general conclusions are supported by many studies since) and/or that there are other periods with similar rapid warming. I have also shown the AGW cynic argument you use ignopres that, unlike now, MWP and LIA are explainable by natural forcings, and that urban heat islands have a minute effect on the figures, not invalidating AGW and rubbishing the claims to the contrary you support, and that the arguments you borrow use sloppy, unscientific fallacious language ('catastrophic').
You claim "The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase." is a myth.
I have shown that Mann's conclusions are supported by the most recent papers published a decade later, that the attack on his data has largely been rebutted, and that when data is posted proving this you don't bother reading it.
You claim "Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth." is a myth.
The increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration is undisputed, this indisputably adds to the heat-capacity of the atmosphere, the Earth's temperature has unarguably changed beyond what can be explained by natural forcings. Some myth. Your additonal claims (like Glassman which you're using to support the above) are simply unsupported; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/abs/408184a0.html. This paper shows how the very cycle you try and claim invalidates AGW is a/ already known by climate scientists and incorporated in their calculations and b/ may actually make things worse at some point.
You claim that "CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas" is a myth.
You fail to show a credible scintific article or projection of climate change which ignores water vapour, and thus this argument is fallacious. You also seem to not realise that as water vapour's role is static, and CO2's isn't, CO2 IS more important than water vapour when discussing claimate change at this time even if water vapour is the major greenhouse contributor. I don't need to cite anything to prove this, it is logically self-evident.
You claim "Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming" is a myth,
Thus far you have failed to provide any references so I can rebutt specific arguments, but as MANY different models (incorporting solar variability and albedo despite your claims to the contrary) support the same general conclusions, why not just admit you're wrong and save us both time and trouble?
You claim "The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming" is a myth.
It is actually a straw man; show me where the UN claim they proved it. They have gone from a claim of 'likely' (65% probability I think) to 'very likely' (90%) between IPCC v3 and IPCC v4.
You claim "CO2 is a pollutant" is a myth.
In fact this is just semantics as (for example) Selinium is just as natural as CO2 but can be damaging in high enough concentrations, just as CO2 can be, and would then be thought of as a pollutant.
You claim "Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes." is a myth.
No such absolute claim has been made by any representative body that supports AGW, for example, the UN; please show otherwise, failure to do so means this argument is ALSO a strawman.
You claim "Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming" is a myth.
If you could find any claim by a reresentative body that those activities by themselves would indicate proof of global warming, please let me know. Your additonal claim "Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age" fails to account for the fact recent temperature increases are NOT explained by a reversal of natural forcings that caused the LIA.
You claim "The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising." is a myth.
I cited (when you first repeated this lie) URL's showing otherwise;
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf
http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsletter/092605.pdf
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/12/MNGE5MTQ211.DTL&type=science
... and you have the unmitigated gall to say "You merely dismissed them as lies".
As this is obviously untrue, there seem to be three alternatives;
- Did you not read my response or check the links
- You are lying to avoid defending your argument
- You have bad memory and a defective back button in Explorer
.... which is it? I'd like to know.
More lies;
All I have said from the beginning is it is not as cut and dried as the IPCC report and persons such as yourself claim it to be.
IPCC is not 'cut and dried'. They allow a 10% chance of error, they have about a dozen different scenarios worked out; you can mispresent it as much as you like but this is a fact.
On this thread I say other research MAY explain 35% of AGW, which doesn't sound 'cut and died'. I also say that there is no plausable alternative explanation for recent climate trends other than that given by AGW; natural forcings cannot explain it.
I love the way you're (I assume) hoping people will notice that this is a fact which no anti-AGW or AGW-cynic can refute.
Essentially you have attacked the argument for AGW as mischaracterised by webpages like FOS I wouldn't wipe my butt with (I think I have documented why).
You have attacked papers supporting AGW using papers authored by obvious (and demonstrable) opinions for hire, ignored the refutations of such anti-AGW papers, ignored the climb-down of the authors of such papers, or tried (prehaps unwittingly) to imply things like CO2 solubility have been 'missed out' of the data supporting AGW.
Rather than actually talking about the science you have been talking about the hype; the hype of the anti-AGW movement which you accept far more uncritically than the argument of the AGW supporters.
Each time I show something you've used to defend your cynicism is an invalid basis of criticism, your opinion remains unchanged and you make no consessions as to the accuracy or credibility of data you use. And you base your opinons on facts? Yeah...
That's not my idea of discussion...//
