Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.[W:325]

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Again...

A short sighted request.

How can I show something real like AGW, not to be real?

For the umpteenth million time...

Skeptics are not saying AGW is real. We are saying the amount of warming from anthropogenic causes are not as strong as claimed.

Phys251...

Do you expect an honest debate when you don't even ask for a correct debate?

The alarmists have no proof their speculative anthropogenic warming is correct, and their models continue to fail. Shouldn't it be them, that proves their quantifications are at least close?

 

[flogger]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

And we have our first flail. You are unable to disprove the theory (you do know what a theory actually means, right?) that humans are by far the number one cause of modern-day climate change. You know why? Because such counter-evidence DOES NOT EXIST. If climate change science were such bunk, or at the very least questionable you could easily find large stashes of studies that refute it. You do know how the scientific method works, right?

Call me picky but is it not incumbent upon you to present empirical evidence of human culpability first before any counter to it is required ? Sorry but to date, subjective opinions and failed climate model guesswork clearly aren't it.

 

[Phil E Buster]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

:lamo No. I wont be attempting to disprove your failed theories. Sorry. Burden of proof is at your feet. You offer a theory, you have to support it. Its not incumbent on others to disprove what you CANNOT prove.

Scientists have already proven his theory.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

TBH, you seem to be giving the deniers too much deference. They don't realize that for most of us, scientific research is out of our league. It requires a substantial amount of knowledge, research, and understanding. That's part of why we should give scientists the respect that they deserve.

after reading through the climategate emails, that's exactly what I do; I give them the respect they deserve. To a rational, objective observer, those emails revealed just how flawed and corrupt the science ( and by definition scientists ) is.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Scientists have already proven his theory.

They most assuredly have not, outside the little echo chamber ( of folks like you). The public is not at all convinced.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

If so many climate scientists are supposedly influenced by political agendas, then the evidence should bear it out. So let's see that evidence. Now.

Specifically, here is what I am looking for: You find a peer-reviewed study published in the last ten years that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change and proceed to debunk it. But here is the catch: Only peer-reviewed scientific research papers shall be admitted as evidence. Also, the more recent it is, the better; the older, the worse. Hint: You don't have to limit yourself to American-based studies; climate science is studied globally. Note that if you believe that if an climate change science is just a political ploy or a conspiracy, then this allows you access to other sources of information that are not allegedly tainted.

Since I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, let me repeat something I said earlier: ANYTHING other than a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER quality work is UNCONDITIONALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE. I don't care how much you think it falsifies the theory: Inferior sources have no place in a scientific discussion. So I don't wanna see any news stories, blogs, conspiracy theories, sob stories from current or former scientists who didn't get their studies accepted, etc. You wanna take on science? Then use science. If you see anything in the study or studies that you select that you believe to be wrong, you MUST use SCIENTIFIC methods to falsify the claim. This means you must produce a refutation that is worthy of harsh peer review. Furthermore, you should EXPECT that harsh peer review to happen. You must thoroughly cite your sources and back up your claims according to graduate-level research standards.

Even if you somehow pass all that, there is one more test your attack must survive: It must clearly imply that the anthropogenic climate change theory is completely wrong, or at the very least, highly questionable. MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THE STUDY HAS ERRORS OR FLAWS IS INSUFFICIENT to your case. You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this well-established science is likely just a smokescreen.

Good luck! I'll be waiting...and something tells me, for quite some time.

Well this is a stupid idea. Of course climate change exists, anyone think we are still in the Ice Age? The really BIG NEWS would be the day the climate stopped changing.

 

[Phil E Buster]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

They most assuredly have not, outside the little echo chamber ( of folks like you). The public is not at all convinced.

The public?

Tell me you're kidding.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Scientists have already proven his theory.

No...they havent. Thats why it is a 'theory'. There is no 'proof' that man is undeniably causing warming, or cooling, or weather extremes. What there IS proof of is that there have been ice ages in the past. Undeniable. Warming cycles in the past unaided by industry. Undeniable. Record highs and lows...undeniable.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

The only known answer to AGW, one originated in, and being pushed by, the UN, involves the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

With the Father of modern AGW, Maurice Strong, former UN Climate Chief, and one of the originators of the Kyoto Climate Conference, on record that he wants to bring down Western Economies, how does the billions being handed out to researchers around the world avoid bias and automatic results the money flow is requiring?

How will the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind address the accusation that humans are responsible for the climate?

I'll give you credit, ocean, at least you tried. But this conjecture falls well short of the standard established by the OP.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

I'll give you credit, ocean, at least you tried. But this conjecture falls well short of the standard established by the OP.

What is silly about this thread, is i will agree that AGW cannot be disproved.

Again...

AGW is real. It just isn't as strong as claimed, and by the same measure you ask someone to prove AGW false, the alarmists cannot prove it to be anywhere near their quantified heating.

 

[loader]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

"Global warming" has quietly changed the name to "Climate Change".
I wonder why?:lamo

 

[flogger]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

I'll give you credit, ocean, at least you tried. But this conjecture falls well short of the standard established by the OP.

He doesn't need to establish anything its you that does. So far appeals to authority based on failed climate modelling doesn't cut it there I'm afraid

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

"Global warming" has quietly changed the name to "Climate Change".
I wonder why?:lamo

Hope and change?

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Skepticism is central to scientific objectivity . In my experience most skeptics are more concerned with whats verifiable as being right or wrong rather than hiding their ignorance behind arguments of whats right or left. That is the scientific method

If only a handful of climatologists are sceptical of the alleged "consensus" of 97%, there is room for me to be sceptical of certain issues pertaining to the variable numbers that emanate from various sources.
The basic fact that there is no "consensus" when it comes to those figures should make anyone a sceptic.

Just for a laugh, can you tell me what the agreed amount of sea level rise will be for 2100?
Plus or minus 5 cm will do.

Fail.

AGW remains an hypothesis.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

FYI

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance

Again...

A short sighted request.

How can I show something real like AGW, not to be real?

For the umpteenth million time...

Skeptics are not saying AGW is real. We are saying the amount of warming from anthropogenic causes are not as strong as claimed.

Phys251...

Do you expect an honest debate when you don't even ask for a correct debate?

The alarmists have no proof their speculative anthropogenic warming is correct, and their models continue to fail. Shouldn't it be them, that proves their quantifications are at least close?

Call me picky but is it not incumbent upon you to present empirical evidence of human culpability first before any counter to it is required ? Sorry but to date, subjective opinions and failed climate model guesswork clearly aren't it.

Wow. Okay, before you guys can even hope to address the OP, you need to understand something very simple about the burden of proof: It is not permanent. It can shift. Once a theory has been supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and study after study decisively backs it up, then it may safely assumed to be true. And then the burden shifts away from supporting the study to opposing the study.

Consider, for example, the fact that the Earth is round. Centuries ago, before the advent of satellites or airplanes, we couldn't just look at a picture of the Earth and say, "Yeah, it's round." Proving that the Earth is round involved a considerable understanding of geography and mathematics. However, once the proof was sufficiently made and can stand up to any kind of scrutiny, and once it DID stand up to that scrutiny time and time again, then the burden of proof shifted from the round-Earthers to the flat-Earthers. For someone to claim that the Earth is flat would require surpassing a monumental standard that, quite frankly, can't be passed, simply because the Earth IS round.

This is one of many things that climate science deniers choose to not understand. They choose to not accept the fact that due to the sheer overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of primarily anthropogenic climate change, THE BURDEN OF PROOF HAS SHIFTED ONTO THE DENIERS. And I don't care how many of you guys flail about this--your rhetoric does not change that fact.

Therefore, I re-pose the question in the OP with its conditions, with fading hope that someone will properly answer it.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

What is silly about this thread, is i will agree that AGW cannot be disproved.

Then you accept its truth?

AGW is real. It just isn't as strong as claimed, and by the same measure you ask someone to prove AGW false, the alarmists cannot prove it to be anywhere near their quantified heating.

See the OP, with the revision that the conjecture being offered is that AGW will be weaker than scientific research projects.

 

[loader]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Hope and change?

"Yes they can't"!

 

[flogger]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Wow. Okay, before you guys can even hope to address the OP, you need to understand something very simple about the burden of proof: It is not permanent. It can shift. Once a theory has been supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and study after study decisively backs it up, then it may safely assumed to be true. And then the burden shifts away from supporting the study to opposing the study.

Consider, for example, the fact that the Earth is round. Centuries ago, before the advent of satellites or airplanes, we couldn't just look at a picture of the Earth and say, "Yeah, it's round." Proving that the Earth is round involved a considerable understanding of geography and mathematics. However, once the proof was sufficiently made and can stand up to any kind of scrutiny, and once it DID stand up to that scrutiny time and time again, then the burden of proof shifted from the round-Earthers to the flat-Earthers. For someone to claim that the Earth is flat would require surpassing a monumental standard that, quite frankly, can't be passed, simply because the Earth IS round.

This is one of many things that climate science deniers choose to not understand. They choose to not accept the fact that due to the sheer overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of primarily anthropogenic climate change, THE BURDEN OF PROOF HAS SHIFTED ONTO THE DENIERS. And I don't care how many of you guys flail about this--your rhetoric does not change that fact.

Therefore, I re-pose the question in the OP with its conditions, with fading hope that someone will properly answer it.

The OP is moot until a burden of proof for your position is established. Feel free to establish it then a rational debate can commence

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

See the OP, with the revision that the conjecture being offered is that AGW will be weaker than scientific research projects.

OK, then it's disproved because we have moved to a lower temperature than predicted in the AR4.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

The OP is moot until a burden of proof for your position is established. Feel free to establish it then a rational debate can commence

As I clearly explained, that burden has already been established and met many times over. The ball is in your court.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

And we have our first flail. You are unable to disprove the theory (you do know what a theory actually means, right?) that humans are by far the number one cause of modern-day climate change. You know why? Because such counter-evidence DOES NOT EXIST. If climate change science were such bunk, or at the very least questionable you could easily find large stashes of studies that refute it. You do know how the scientific method works, right?

I can give you evidence than the sun has increased radiative forcing of the earth by 0.91 watts/square meter from 1750 to 2004. During this same period, the IPCC claims 1.66 w/m^2 of warming.

Does that count as showing natural forces stronger than the claimed CO2?

 

[flogger]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

As I clearly explained, that burden has already been established and met many times over. The ball is in your court.

Whatever way you slice it, guesswork and opinion are not proof especially when they are increasingly at odds with what is happening in the real world

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

OK, then it's disproved because we have moved to a lower temperature than predicted in the AR4.

Did you even read what I said? The null hypothesis is that AGW will be as claimed by research; the alternative hypothesis, to accommodate your claim, was changed to the idea that AGW will be statistically significantly less than what the research claims. Not once did I even come close to suggesting that your conjecture might be true.

I can give you evidence than the sun has increased radiative forcing of the earth by 0.91 watts/square meter from 1750 to 2004. During this same period, the IPCC claims 1.66 w/m^2 of warming.

Does that count as showing natural forces stronger than the claimed CO2?

My god...I could probably find that level of info myself from a two-minute Google search. How in the world does this tiny piece of information even come CLOSE to satisfying the strict conditions laid out in the OP?

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Whatever way you slice it, guesswork and opinion are not proof especially when they are increasingly at odds with what is happening in the real world

Excellent point! You would be wise to follow it. Now where's that evidence that I seek?

 

[longview]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Wow. Okay, before you guys can even hope to address the OP, you need to understand something very simple about the burden of proof: It is not permanent. It can shift. Once a theory has been supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and study after study decisively backs it up, then it may safely assumed to be true. And then the burden shifts away from supporting the study to opposing the study.

So what is the theory? And what evidence is it supported by?
If someone says that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, nothing earth shattering there, of course it is.
If someone says that doubling the amount of Co2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm will likely
cause an average temperature increase of 1.2°C, no problem, Physics supports the statement.
If on the other hand, someone says, they predict that doubling Co2 will cause an average
temperature increase of 3 to 5 °C, because of the feedback/Forcing which they believe will happen,
but do not support that belief with a theory, I take issue with that.
The fact that the observed data, only shows a minimal increase above the known Co2 response,
only further reduces the credibility, of that belief.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

My god...I could probably find that level of info myself from a two-minute Google search. How in the world does this tiny piece of information even come CLOSE to satisfying the strict conditions laid out in the OP?

It never would since the author of the OP already has his mind made up.

P.S.

I did the graph. Compiled it from peer reviewed work. I've posted it before.