• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Intellectual Dishonesty of the 1998 Global Warming Pause

ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, we can agree that mankind has helped to change the planet's climate but that does not mean that rich nations will (or even should) pay for poor nations to alter that situation.
Click to expand...

Oh they won't, they'll bitch about refugees as if they had no hand in anything at all.
 
longview said:
There you go, using an appeal to authority again!
I would take anything a politician says
With a grain of salt.
The bottom line is that CO2 can both be a greenhouse gas,and have low
Sensitivity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If you vote you take anything a poltician says for granted all the time.
 
longview said:
There you go, using an appeal to authority again!
I would take anything a politician says
With a grain of salt.
The bottom line is that CO2 can both be a greenhouse gas,and have low
Sensitivity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The claim was that no one is denying climate change. That's a false claim. Even the POTUS is denying it. So are a lot of other people.

Yes, let's take anything politician says, particularly anything Donald Trump says, with a grain of salt, but let's not try to claim he and a lot of others didn't say it.
 
As pointed out in #24, the premise of this thread has been debunked. The rest is just AGW advocates' rear guard action to cover their retreat.
 
Mithrae said:
If someone asserts that "The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible" (as quoted by Judith Curry), what context do you imagine could redeem the statement?
Click to expand...
What is the time index of that part in the video if you are going to hang your hat on it?

He was clearly speaking of the constant annual increases of CO2 buildup, which is impossible to occur in the manner of which claimed, and was explaining why it stops increasing because of equilibrium.

Mithrae said:
Curry promoted Salby's talk without a word of criticism in the page I linked, and shortly afterwards (as Quaestio posted in the 2016 thread) she posted someone else's comprehensive refutation of the bull****, claiming that "This is exactly the sort of thing that [she] hoped [her] post would elicit." From that refutation, even you were persauded to acknowledge Salby as a "pundit." But always expert in the double-speak of 'raising questions' and 'promoting discussion,' Judith Curry's devoted fans might come away with either the conclusion that she didn't really endorse Salby's views or that she didn't really reject them.
Click to expand...
Well, my criticism goes way beyond what 99.9% of the people would know about physics.

Mithrae said:
Unfortunately her quote of his statement that "The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible" doesn't really lend itself to fence-sitting and ambiguity: My criticism is of Judith Curry, Jack Hays, and those who supported it for promoting such tripe.
Click to expand...
Unless the context of what they were promoting was endless increases in atmospheric levels.

Context is everything, and people misspeak a word on occasion.

In no way did he ever imply that we do not raise CO2 levels. He was explicitly making the poiunt that it stabilizes at a new equilibrium, and this equilibrium is higer than previous. If you are going to sit there and ignore the rest of what he said, then you are not worth debating at all.

He never make the claim the way that single sentence appears to be!

Context is everything!

If you are going to repeatedly ignore the context when it matters, then you deserve to be ignored as well.

I am not one that recalls exact wording of things, but again. He was never claiming CO2 levels do not rise with man's output. He was explicitly making the claim that they reach a new equilibrium.

Mithrae said:
But if you're particularly interested in Salby's own words and video, you're the one who claims to have studied it, so you tell me: Does Salby elsewhere acknowledge that most of the increased atmospheric CO2 actually does result from fossil fuels emissions? And if so, does that 'context' somehow redeem the quote that such a thing is impossible?
Click to expand...
Again, he acknowledges it's being added to the system and creates a higher equilibrium of CO2 in the atmosphere, in the carbon cycle.

Mithrae said:
I would suggest that Salby is not as good at double-speak as Judith Curry, or that his intentions and audience require much less pretext of objectivity and scientific accuracy: Those who want to will readily come away with the conclusion that he proved there is zero or negligable human impact on climate, while those who want to (but are more educated) may come away with the conclusion that "He wasn't perfect. There was a couple things I disagreed with, rather he conveniently ignored."
Click to expand...
I would suggest that you have no place in such debates if you are going to stick with a point that you either don't understand, or allow the pundits to tell you what to believe.

Mithrae said:
Those who are not so eager to believe will recognize the blatant lies - for a second example, that "humans have emitted twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the last decade compared to a decade earlier" - and therefore see the ambiguities and rhetorical spin for what they are (assuming that he did actually provide a contrasting 'context' to the bit Curry quoted in the first place!).
Click to expand...
I don't follow where you are going with that.

I can only assume that if you actually watched his video, that the level of science he was speaking of is over your head.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Right, right, no one on this forum would maintain that AGW isn't real, no one.
Click to expand...

But that's the problem.

AGW is real. It's just not as black and white as the alarmists and warmers think it is.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The claim was that no one is denying climate change. That's a false claim. Even the POTUS is denying it. So are a lot of other people.

Yes, let's take anything politician says, particularly anything Donald Trump says, with a grain of salt, but let's not try to claim he and a lot of others didn't say it.
Click to expand...
Actually the statement in post #7 was,
"Does anyone actually argue that AGW is not real?"
The is quite a bit different than someone denying that the climate changes.
It also brings into question the definition of AGW?
Is AGW simply that Human activity has caused the climate to change in a some way it would not have without humans,
or is AGW the full suite of the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC?
Humans clearly influence the climate with land use, and CO2 emissions also contribute to changing the climate.
How much this factors influence the climate is the subject of the debate.
I frankly do not care what anyone says, if their statement is not supported by the data.
The data shows CO2's climate response is in the very low end of the IPCC's range,
The subjective opinions of the experts fade before the empirical data.
 
longview said:
Actually the statement in post #7 was,
"Does anyone actually argue that AGW is not real?"
The is quite a bit different than someone denying that the climate changes.
It also brings into question the definition of AGW?
Is AGW simply that Human activity has caused the climate to change in a some way it would not have without humans,
or is AGW the full suite of the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC?
Humans clearly influence the climate with land use, and CO2 emissions also contribute to changing the climate.
How much this factors influence the climate is the subject of the debate.
I frankly do not care what anyone says, if their statement is not supported by the data.
The data shows CO2's climate response is in the very low end of the IPCC's range,
The subjective opinions of the experts fade before the empirical data.
Click to expand...

The alarmists are being so idiotic ariund this issue. When they frame it as meaning AGW is that full set of conditions, then sensible people say NO! Then they call sensible people deniers, claiming we don't believe AGW is real, when we keep trying to tell them, yes. Man has an impact.

Words have meaning, and they constantly abuse the meaning of words. And they want to call us stupid?

Go figure.
 
longview said:
Actually the statement in post #7 was,
"Does anyone actually argue that AGW is not real?"
The is quite a bit different than someone denying that the climate changes.
It also brings into question the definition of AGW?
Is AGW simply that Human activity has caused the climate to change in a some way it would not have without humans,
or is AGW the full suite of the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC?
Humans clearly influence the climate with land use, and CO2 emissions also contribute to changing the climate.
How much this factors influence the climate is the subject of the debate.
I frankly do not care what anyone says, if their statement is not supported by the data.
The data shows CO2's climate response is in the very low end of the IPCC's range,
The subjective opinions of the experts fade before the empirical data.
Click to expand...

That was the question in post 7, yes.
And the answer is, "yes, lots of people are denying AGW, particularly the A part, since it's blindingly obvious that climate change is real.

Remember the "They once said a new ice age was coming" argument?
How about the "The Earth quit warming 10 (or 20 or however many) years ago"?
And then there was the "The ice sheets in the Antarctic are getting thicker" one?
How about the "glaciers aren't melting after all" meme?
and the classic, "Dang, it's cold here this winter. So much for global warming" argument.

now, no one is saying that AGW is not real? OK, but if that's so, then there has been a marvelous transformation.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That was the question in post 7, yes.
And the answer is, "yes, lots of people are denying AGW, particularly the A part, since it's blindingly obvious that climate change is real.

Remember the "They once said a new ice age was coming" argument?
How about the "The Earth quit warming 10 (or 20 or however many) years ago"?
And then there was the "The ice sheets in the Antarctic are getting thicker" one?
How about the "glaciers aren't melting after all" meme?
and the classic, "Dang, it's cold here this winter. So much for global warming" argument.

now, no one is saying that AGW is not real? OK, but if that's so, then there has been a marvelous transformation.
Click to expand...
The earth is and has been warming. CO2 is likely a factor, and the Human contribution isa portion of the CO2 increase.
The National academy of Science did write a report in 1974 about concerns of a coming ice age.
When we know the non El Nino temperatures for 2015 and 2016, the pause may still be present.
The predicted .21 C per decades mentioned in the Nature article about the basis of the models, has not continued.
It is still warming, just not at the predicted rate.
 
longview said:
The earth is and has been warming. CO2 is likely a factor, and the Human contribution isa portion of the CO2 increase.
Click to expand...

That's a good summary of what science has been saying all along. The bloggers and politicians don't always agree.

longview said:
The National academy of Science did write a report in 1974 about concerns of a coming ice age.
Click to expand...

No....That ’70s myth—did climate science really call for a “coming ice age?”

but it has been used as an argument against what science is saying about the subject.

longview said:
When we know the non El Nino temperatures for 2015 and 2016, the pause may still be present.
Click to expand...

No, it's not present, and never was. It was simply another argument to deny scientific research, an argument that you're now claiming was never made.

longview said:
The predicted .21 C per decades mentioned in the Nature article about the basis of the models, has not continued.
It is still warming, just not at the predicted rate.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is still warming. Science has not concluded just what the "predicted rate" should be even now.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Are you arguing that AGW is a myth, or that no one ever made the argument that it was a myth? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

The point to which I replied was mere modeling. I already posted a link to a paper based on actual data, confirming the pause. I would not call AGW a myth. I would call it inconsequential.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
I've been hearing that since the late 80s... as the models consistently predicted what would happen fairly correctly.

Yet the zombie argument still persists.
Click to expand...

As already pointed out, the paper linked in #20 is a stake through the heart of this thread's premise. Your model doesn't matter.
 
Jack Hays said:
The point to which I replied was mere modeling. I already posted a link to a paper based on actual data, confirming the pause. I would not call AGW a myth. I would call it inconsequential.
Click to expand...

I don't know about inconsequential.

We have little choice on how are land use changes affect things. However, the soot we produce across the globe is impacting the ice. This is the easiest aspect of AGW for us to tackle. I see CO2 as inconsequential, but not land use and aerosols.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't know about inconsequential.

We have little choice on how are land use changes affect things. However, the soot we produce across the globe is impacting the ice. This is the easiest aspect of AGW for us to tackle. I see CO2 as inconsequential, but not land use and aerosols.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. When I say AGW I'm referring to CO2.
 
Jack Hays said:
Fair enough. When I say AGW I'm referring to CO2.
Click to expand...

That is the general item used by alarmists, and in my book, the wrong thing to focus on. Just wanted to clarify there are other significant factors.
 
Threegoofs said:
Except it's been eclipsed by more recent work.

Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’ : Nature : Nature Research
Click to expand...

That's a different question. The thread's premise was that the Pause derived from intellectual dishonesty. The paper cited in #20 is conclusive evidence that is false, and thereby debunks the thread's premise. Many of the papers cited in your link also affirm the reality of the Pause. Thank you for supporting my point. The thread's premise is debunked many times over.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's a different question. The thread's premise was that the Pause derived from intellectual dishonesty. The paper cited in #20 is conclusive evidence that is false, and thereby debunks the thread's premise. Many of the papers cited in your link also affirm the reality of the Pause. Thank you for supporting my point. The thread's premise is debunked many times over.
Click to expand...

Is the "pause" over, long since over?

International report confirms 2016 was warmest year on record for the globe | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom