The CAGW Handbook

YOU introduced this guy, Jack.....you did so to "prove" your point with a "respected" scientist in the field. But when I produce a lengthy, scientific debunking of your hero's key works, now I'M deflecting from the topic?



GMAFB, Jack.

 

A significant threat to forests is the harvesting of "biomass" for "renewable" energy.
Regardless, CO2-driven greening is a highly positive factor.

 

Sorry, but your "scientific debunking" is neither scientific nor a debunking. It's a hit-piece screed persuasive only to true believers. The fact is that ever since his publication of his great book The Skeptical Environmentalist Lomborg has been a marked man for the alarmists. Finding themselves unable to rebut him, they have tried to shout him down. It is one of those circumstances that showcases the weak foundation of climate alarmist orthodoxy.

 

First, I see no reason to use words like "lying" in this discussion.
Second, the attack on Lomborg was long ago recognized for the illegitimate exercise that it was.
(PDF) On the Opposition Against the Book The Skeptical ...
www.researchgate.net › publication › 250207154_On_the...
Nov 21, 2020 — PDF | On Mar 1, 2005, Arthur Rörsch and others published On the Opposition Against ... March 2005; Journal of Information Ethics 14(1):16-28.

Their findings were consistent with the wisdom of Gunnar Myrdal.
"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research

 

Translation: I can't read the link, because I am too lazy to learn.

NASA themselves said there is a big greening going on,

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Find

LINK

======

Going to be too lazy to read this one?

 

Good graph, but IMO graphs that have time going right to left instead of left to right are gratuitously misleading, which is why they are more often used by the CAGW crowd.

 

I will stipulate that massive deforestation is likely to be a problem, like overfishing. But what on earth could possess you to assume that the natural progression of earth's climate is necessarily optimal??

 

I looked at that website, which is incredibly huge, and the alleged debunkings and refutations are nothing of the sort. They are largely amateurish quibbles, different interpretations of data, strawman fallacies, etc., all drawn out at tedious length, but with minimal discernible scientific merit.

 

See the folly of trying to debunk people's religion, and IT IS a religion by any measure; priesthood, dogma, and obedient, unquestioning flock.

 

I fail to see how this chart is misleading, can you explain why you think it is?

 

First, When you make a statement that is in direct contradiction to the physical evidence, and treat it as truth, that is a lie. The chronology of the posts shows that's what you did when you tried to BS past the fact that you introduced this joker into the discussion then accused me of trying to change the subject when I challenged his validity.

Second, the summation of your link starts off with "In our opinion, even when Lomborg had it all wrong....." Got that? Admitting that "opinion" not fact is their basis for claiming my link is wrong. They don't like it....they can't logically or factually throw it out, but they'll treat their tome like gospel. GMAFB!

Maybe if you had read the information I linked, you would have noted that they include NASA's findings....they just point out that the greening is not an adequate or sufficient replacement for the regions of forests being erradicated. Go back, read all the links carefully and comprehensively. Hopefully, you'll see my point.

 

FYI: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-cagw-handbook.582955/page-2#post-1072343065

 

Quantities on the horizontal axis increase to the right, on the vertical axis they increase upward. The time in the graph is reversed, so that farther to the right is farther back in time, the opposite of the standard way time data are presented in graphs everywhere.

 

You have missed the point. I regard your claims as refuted.

 

Climate Change Blamed For Lake Victoria Record High Levels (After Being Blamed For Low Levels)!
By P Gosselin on 5. January 2021

Share this...
Science absurdity…

“Climate experts” blame climate change for Lake Victoria record high levels, after blaming climate change for the low levels in 2006. . . .

 

Are Climate Nuremberg Trials On The Way?
Charles Rotter
Their objectives are to “bring down the fossil fuel companies”, coerce defendants “to the table” and ultimately to enlist them as lobbyists for desired climate policies. That is, the idea…

 

translation: Jack ignores the content of my post and just gives a generalized, insipidly stubborn bluff as if it's a substitute for point/counterpoint discussion....a true sign of the intellectual dishonesty of Jack's stance on the subject.

 

Well, no. You did miss the point. And I refuse to follow you down the road to personal invective.

 

translation: Jack blows smoke to avoid conceding a point. Typical. He's done and unless he's willing to address point for point the content of the post, http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-cagw-handbook.582955/page-2#post-1072343065 I won't waste time responding to his repeated assertions/allegations or similar post spams.

 

As already pointed out, the attack on Lomborg was long ago recognized for the illegitimate exercise that it was.
(PDF) On the Opposition Against the Book The Skeptical ...
www.researchgate.net › publication › 250207154_On_the...
Nov 21, 2020 — PDF | On Mar 1, 2005, Arthur Rörsch and others published On the Opposition Against ... March 2005; Journal of Information Ethics 14(1):16-28.

Please note the complaints against Lomborg fall into three categories.
1. Complaints that are themselves factually wrong.
2. Complaints that are at best arguable.
3. Complaints that are so petty as to not be worth anyone's time.

The conclusion is that the attack on Lomborg tells us little about climate science, but much about the sociology of climate science. The attack is not intended to persuade anyone, but rather to rally those who are already true believers. It is cheerleading, not science.

We'll always have Myrdal.
"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research

 

this was already addressed on Post #36, were I wrote:

"First, When you make a statement that is in direct contradiction to the physical evidence, and treat it as truth, that is a lie. The chronology of the posts shows that's what you did when you tried to BS past the fact that you introduced this joker into the discussion then accused me of trying to change the subject when I challenged his validity.

Second, the summation of your link starts off with "In our opinion, even when Lomborg had it all wrong....." Got that? Admitting that "opinion" not fact is their basis for claiming my link is wrong. They don't like it....they can't logically or factually throw it out, but they'll treat their tome like gospel. GMAFB!"

Ya got nothing left by the insipid stubbornness of parroted already disproved statements. You're done. Adios Jackson.

 

Hmmm. I have to assume you know the snippet you quoted is wholly out of context and grossly misleading. And btw, it's not from "the summation." You stand refuted.

 

Systematic Problems in the Four National Assessments of Climate Change Impacts on the US (Dr. Patrick Michaels)

 

Never use the term "CAGW", because it's cult lingo from the WUWT cult, and so it instantly destroys all credibilty of those using it.

Also, the greening ended in the 1990s. Few deniers know that, because their masters don't see fit to inform them of it.

 

No, that's just another objectively false claim on your part. Your use of the term, "cult" in reference to WUWT proves that you are just another hysterical, shrieking, gibbering, anti-truth, anti-science, anti-fossil-fuel CAGW propaganda-spewing scaremonger.

No, you instantly destroyed your own credibility when you referred to WUWT as a "cult." CAGW is the most honest and accurate term to describe the commonly bruited claims that use of fossil fuels will cause rapid and harmful global warming.

No, all your claims continue to be objectively false:

https://mashable.com/article/greening-china-india-nasa/

Actually, the use of the term, "denier" in reference to those who question the scientific basis of anti-fossil-fuel CAGW hate propaganda instantly removes all credibility, as it proves the user is nothing but another hysterical, shrieking, gibbering, anti-truth, anti-science, anti-fossil-fuel CAGW propaganda-spewing scaremonger.