Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

Which scientists? The ones that back up your belief or the ones that don't?

 

How would you know what is legit or not if you did not read it ??

 

Which I suppose is fine, as far as it goes, everyone is after all, entitled to an opinion. But if someone wants to advance or advocate for a position it is incumbent upon them to provide evidence of their assertions. A claim that is made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

Your statement makes the erroneous assumption that people must come to this subject with a preconceived 'belief', and are therefore attempting to back it up. Can you demonstrate that this is true? Is that what you have done?

 

And again a closed alarmist mind remains closed.

 

I read it all the time. Once again you seem to know more about me than I know myself. Funny...seeing how we have never met. I just don't bother with propaganda pieces or fiction.

 

There is no assumption made. And it is certainly and likely that people have a preconception on an issue before deciding to do a diligent job of investigating both sides of that issue. The key is having the curiosity and initiative to challenge that preconception. That is exactly what I've done and it is exactly what many participants in this thread refuse to do.

 

You have read "The Hockey Stick Illusion", "Smart Solutions to Climate Change", "The Climate Casino", "Lukewarming", "The Rightful Place of Science - Disasters and Climate Change", "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels", "The Corruption of Climate Science", and many more ??

What do you read ??

 

The IPCC is a great example. Funded by government to prove only one thing, the influence of CO2 on climate. Funding from government only supports this preconceived hypothesis. It is a beautiful vehicle for power as the hypothesis cannot be falsified so any pronouncement cannot be proven or disproven.

 

A lot of folks come here with highly burnished "scientific" credentials by their own testimony. Virtual scientific consensus on the fact of AGW? No problem. Those folks are following bad models or whatever and the "don't call them deniers", with their REAL science, have the evidence to prove it most assuredly. It's so clear they don't even need sources.

Now here is a man who really waves his science around. He emphatically proves Galileo and Einstein got it wrong. He also reaffirms the science of earlier days, to whit it is a geocentric universe. Gosh I just don't know how to argue with this guy. He's got science coming out of everywhere. I'm scratching my head. How could I have gotten it all so wrong? It must be a conspiracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr8lb2tYvo

 

You don't understand the issue. It is not the occurance of AGW that is in question, it is the effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on the global average temperature and the effects of that increase on the net human condition. The data says that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is ~ 1 deg C whilst the model consensus says it is ~ 3 deg C.

I have no idea of what point you are trying to make with the youtube video ??

 

LOL I love how you presume to answer for Hoosier8 about an assumption in his post and assert that no assumption is being made. The irony is wonderful.

- - - Updated - - -

What hypothesis are you referring to here which cannot be falsified?

 

Nope...don't plan on it.

 

AGW based on CO2.

 

I'm answering for myself. This is a forum and not a private conversation. There is nothing ironic about that.

- - - Updated - - -

So you don't read arguments based on real world data. And again an alarmist closed mind remains closed.

 

I don't bother with propaganda. Most of my reading has been soil science and land management. Because I firmly believe that is where the solution lies.

 

And again another alarmist with a closed mind retains a closed mind. But I thought you claimed to be widely read on both sides of the issue but cannot list anything you've read concerning real world data on global warming ?? Very strange but typical.

 

Not an alarmist .....a realist.

 

Why were people in the middle of severe droughts hundreds, thousands, and millions of years ago, before anyone used fossil fuels? The weather system is chaotic and unpredictable, that's why. Many places that normally get little rain are experiencing flooding. Do you know what "Louisiana" and "Pakistan" are? There has always been extreme weather and changing climate. To say that suddenly, now, all the extreme weather and changing climate must somehow be caused by CO2 is absurd, anti-scientific nonsense.

 

Just as predicted by climate science.

 

Nope. What you preposterously call climate "science" is nothing but an absurd claim that all bad weather is caused by human emissions of CO2.

 

The southeast was forecast ....dry spells followed by torrential rain. You can't stand it when predications come true. But not to worry you can grow your wheat and corn in your greenhouses.

 

No one has EVER made that claim

 

Why would a realist believe in the fantasy world of general circulation model predictions for the next 100 years and not believe in the data from the real world which indicates that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is ~ 1 deg C ??

- - - Updated - - -

And again we have the alarmists confusing climate variation with global warming.

- - - Updated - - -

This entire thread is based on the alarmist confusion of climate variation with global warming resulting from AGW (CO2 emissions). Bringiton is absolutely correct.

- - - Updated - - -

That statement is ridiculous which you would realize had you actually done any reading (as you claimed to have done). Still waiting for your list of titles.

 

That is most definitely an untrue assertion. It would be easy to come up with things that would falsify AGW based on CO2.

What is unfalsifiable is the position that:
1) All scientists who are proponents of AGW are 'Alarmists' and in on a global conspiracy.
2) Smart people reject 'alarmists'
3) There are no scientists (other than 'alarmists') who support the idea of AGW, and all smart people reject the theory of AGW, so therefore AGW is false.

Not saying that there are actually any idiots who would profess such a theory or line of reasoning (you have not), but if they did that would be an unfalsifiable position. It is unfalsifiable because it defines out any possible criticism or refutation before it can be given. It is much more religious or political than scientific.