justone

Again, - because you say so. Circular logic in the second power.
You are in the state of total denial. I have quoted not my opinion but opinions of the scientific community. Also one can make a conclusion from the link posted. Let the public decide. (I will give you a tip. An e-print publication is not a journal publication.).
It has no relation and your argument has no value. every single major scientific organization is not every scientist of that organization, and is not even majority of scientists; acceptance is NOT indorsed by all scientists of an organization, even if to imagine that your statement is true. The idea that every scientist accepts, and thus has spent a very significant amount of time to look at AWG is ridiculous. It can come only from my friend jfuh.


Bray and von Storch, 2003The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. One of the questions asked was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree. The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions."

Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997
In 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 state climatologists on questions related to climate change[60]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely man-made.

Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years. I will save space: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


DemandDebate.com, a project of former tobacco lobbyist Steven J. Milloy. conducted the first-ever survey of the U.S.
scientists who participated in the most recent IPCC report.

Another notable result is that an astounding 20% of those surveyed said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.


STATS: Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change
.

There is not too much of stats about opinions of scientists, but the available contradicts your view.

If asked individualy, secientists rather desagree than agre, or agree no more than disargee.. So let me ask you your qusestion: Why the majority of scientists disagree with AWG ? Would yo ever understand that scientists think, organizations do not?

As soon as you delegate your thinking to an organization you turn into jfuh.

In your view scientists are those who produce publications that refute AGW. I like when you go into the state of total denial. You produce such cute statements. You have failed to produce publications that are supposed to be refuted.


All they have to point is that you don’t have any credible evidence. Who is making the AWG claim?




You have failed to bring articles claiming. AWG. Prove that not a single. I have been proving you are wrong:
“Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions.
Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector : Abstract : Nature “


"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
UAHuntsville News

Well jfuh, thanks, you have made me learn something about AGW, because you know I had not been paying too much of attention. I just was trusting my 6th sense. Now I discover astonishing things.
‘’Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds’’. DOH? Takes much and so long – that would be the 1st Q anybody from thermodynamics would ask. It is clear, Co2 ‘’layer’’ is the same, as heated – should rise, thin and have holes bringing higher conventional heat exchange rate. If you wish to use your greenohouse – poke holes on the top and all heat would be rapidly escaping; plus as your greenhouse expands it cools down. DOH? I wonder how many years would take to figure that out? On ipcc pages we see such a bogus drawing without any understanding of thermodynamics, - it is thermo- DYNAMICS. It is all about motion, constant change. You see sometimes the 6th sense can be totally wrong. I assumed that scientists took a look at very basic things, now I see they did not.


There is no such objection in any scientific literature.
1. Let’s say so, and? How does it argue against my statement?
2. There is no such thing as a consensus position in scientific literature. No objection can be made to something that does not exist.
My claim is based on the consideration of the provided papers as they have been provided. You are in the state of total denial; the papers do not prove or even address AWG.
[QUOTE=jfuh;1057739156 You obviously did not even bother to read over his post which is why you are here making such a non-sense lying claim. [/QUOTE]

Firstly you have been dishonest a minute ago claiming that I did not read, no you are discussing the details of my reading.


Heretic posted a BSpaper for me? It is his style. Thank fro pointing I did not notice how he was cheating in this moment.

Hello, Heretic and you have been lying that they are claiming AWG, now ‘’None of these mentioned AGW.’’ Thanks, my point is proven. This is exactly what I have been proving: ‘’None of these mentioned AGW’’

Hey, did you read the ones marked “’you are shooting yourself in the foot’’? If none of then mention AWG, it means for you that they prove AWG? You start making such cute statements when you are at the wall.

It is not my assertion. My only assertion is exactly the same as yours, -that not a single one of these articles addresses AGW; when I have told you that before asking me for articles disproving AGW you must point me to articles proving AGW. How can one disprove something that has not been proven or addressed? Tell me. jfuh in the state of total denial.

Hey, did Heretic make any attempt for an honest debate by providing any links? What can I do then?
Go and google: Abbot, C.G., 1910: The solar constant of radiation. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report, p. 319, - and whatever, - and you will see that I have done more than I have been required. Thanks for pointing out to Heretic’s falsifications. I did not notice how he was cheating.
Venus what? Cooling, warming, some MAN MADE GW on Venus? Makes ends to connect in your statement?

I did not read, but I believe you as to a friend. As the T goes up, volume, pressure, density, humidity – rains and hails, turbulence -hurricanes and other things change, the system will be seeking balance, the T will go down, as long as the heat source and surroundings stay the same. It is not like you are adding an additional source of heat. Everything like for every time.

jfuh

The question you need to be asking as to CO2 being fed back upon and then resulting in further incriments of the greenhouse gas is - when did this happen? THat was the result of Malokovich cycles - aka orbital wobble.
WHat we see today is not a result of that by any means.
The temperatures are following the CO2 increase.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

jfuh

Earth is a closed system? The solar energy being trapped is from outside the system and because something warms doesn't mean that something else will decrease that temp. Venus is a perfect example of how the balance is unfavorable for life and has resulted in a planet that has essentially "melted itself" specifically because of greenhouse gases gone amock.
Another one of those trying to sound intelligent arguments.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

justone

Why do you have to repeat the same argument, I am tired and almost falling asleep, I cannot make anything better than just to re-quote my previous answer.

Btw I am retracting my answer to you statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfuh
Because it's rational is bogus. You know it's bogus as well.
I answered:
‘’Again, - because you say so. Circular logic in the second power.’’
Now I would answer – you have tried to pull one of those justone’s tricks. I encourage you to keep on exercising.


1. Are you asking or you are making it to be a closed system?

All systems are open. It depends on the process you are considering. You can close it, if it is practical.


2. When you consider the solar energy you have to include the Sun in the system. Either you are talking about heat exchange between the Sun and the Earth, or you disregard it.

3. It is wrong. If something is warming it exactly means that something is decreasing in temperature. You can experiment – take a hot object and put it in a bucket with cold water.



4. Did you see that? There is no amock in thermodynamics. It does not look at the universe with your eyes. In eyes of thermodynamics there are no favors. In its eyes it would be rather the Earth which run amock. How in the world 1., 2. and 3. ever related to 4? Venus what? Cooling, warming, some MAN MADE GW on Venus? Makes ends to connect in your statement?

It melted itself and it lives happily and in a balance with its surroundings and the Sun since then, unless you want to tell me that Venus men made it melt.

jfuh

So is a flame getting colder as it heats water? Is the sun getting colder as it radiates the earth?

IN this continuous attempt of sounding intelligent I doubt you know what you're talking about right now.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

justone

Absolutely.

You can do it by yourself. Take some wood, mount a kettle with water over it, and set the wood on fire. As the water would be warming, flame would be cooling down. It will not take you an hour. If you want to see it immediately – light up a match and put it on the ground, - you will see flame getting colder in a matter of seconds.


Absolutely.

The sun as it radiates energy is getting colder. No even a nanosecond of a doubt

jfuh, it is basics, did you ever take basic physics?

And then what does it have to do?



Did not I quote your words? If you don’t know what you're talking about, then you are right, - I cannot know what you're talking.

And then what does it have to do?

For quite a while you have been posting so far away from the subject I tried to address.

I think we are done here, aren’t we? Unless you wish to make another joke about warming and energy. As a friend I would advise you not to.

Bodhisattva

Thinking can do that to some people... sorry that you appear to be one of them.

__________________
"Only pompous idiots have a quotation as their signature" - Agnapostate

Heretic

True, the study did appear in Nature, but that is not what it said. The industry funded denialist group predictably got it wrong. They're simply trotting out the same old "CO2 follows warming" argument, which ignores the fact that CO2 is a both a feedback and forcing:

Not much of one at all, actually. It's all known and accounted for.

A very small school of thought. Localized climate change has been responsible for the collapse of quite a few civilizations. It's simply a matter of history. As a matter of fact, there's new evidence to suggest that we had an effect on climate far earlier than thought.

'Cause seriously, climate is just too hard to understand. I mean anyone who says it gets cold in the winter obviously has an agenda...

*sigh*

That line of BS just never seems to die the death its worthy...

Or for those severely impaired:

__________________
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. -- Dr. Albert Bartlett

Heretic

Our military seems to be concerned. I see no reason to doubt their assessment. You've certainly offered none, or are they fishing for cash too?

Really? Interesting. Well, I haven't had any trouble finding information on AGW at all. There's a staggering amount of information available online, from official sources within your own government to independent researchers, as well as decades of printed studies and journal articles that are freely available in any library. If you have been having limited access to the data, I can only assume you've been looking in the wrong place.

__________________
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. -- Dr. Albert Bartlett

Heretic

Which must mean I'm right, since you continue to quote me.

I wouldn't say skeptics "develop" conspiracy theories, since they're usually never coherent, fully explained theories, and lack any and all evidence that they exist. Skeptics just maintain that they're there, or "automatic" as you put it, in order to dismiss any evidence that may contradict their theory. AGW skeptics are simply doing what they're paid to do - present to the public the false idea that there is a debate to be had. It's a brilliant PR tactic, one that was specifically patterned after the one the tobacco industry used when they were fighting the science on the dangers of smoking. It's terribly effective.

I simply think it's far more likely that you're wrong than the hundreds of thousands of publishing scientists across the globe, the smartest people we have on the planet, are knowingly or unknowingly pushing false research. Or to be more precise, that you've blown the lid off it.

The existence of global warming and what to do about it are two distinct and separate discussions. My interest is only on the former; I'm terrible with national policy. I am sure, however, that any proposed solutions will be meaningless if we cannot fully acknowledge the reality of our situation.

What?!? “Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate” has nothing to do with AGW? No wonder you're so confused. You don't even know what AGW is!

Promise?

You misunderstood my point. I was merely pointing out that a list of skeptic scientists doesn't disprove AGW anymore than a similar list did of evolution.

No, the didn't say that exact phrase. But if you're honestly trying to convince us that they weren't arguing that AGW was thermodynamically impossible then I can only assume you're hoping no one here can actually read.

Setting your standards pretty low, aren't you? Wikipedia continues:

The same Citizens for a Sound Economy that worked with Philip Morris in their tobacco campaign. Obviously the paragon of scientific integrity. Though citing a 10 yr old survey isn't making your case...

Steve Milloy, yet another shill left over from the tobacco wars. His survey was absolutely laughable, with predictably bogus results. Again, you're setting your standards really low...

But honestly, is that all you have? Surveys? I thought this was far more telling:

Good try, though. Points for effort.

Whoops. Looks like you misunderstood that one like every other denialist out there:

Definitely not the death knell it was claimed to be. The phenomenon hasn't been demonstrated outside of the tropics, as well as anywhere near on the level Spencer or Lindzen claim.

Interestingly enough greenhouse gases do not work quite like greenhouses. Greenhouses prevent heat loss by preventing convection. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, prevent heat loss by preventing radiation loss. That should clear up a lot of your confusion.

I didn't provide a link because there wasn't one to provide. Instead I provided the citation to a real book, made of real paper! I can tell you're confused by them, but trust me, they're awesome!

__________________
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. -- Dr. Albert Bartlett