The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

The Politics began when Timothy Worthless and Al Bore created a carnival in the Senate room using Dr. Hansen who made unsupported sensational claims, in 1988.

It was not a problem before that........

 

The best answer would be to do nothing, and use the money saved to address actual problems.

 

When you weasel names ( Timothy Worthless Al Bore ) I can't take you seriously.

Sorry. If you want to repost it sans the sophomoric treatment, I'd be happy to reply.

 

Wait until the evidence is clear. It does not matter if liars claim, "That will be too late."

And to corrupt science in the service of a political agenda is a despicable crime against humanity.

 

I see five possible reasons for your 'do nothing' answer, so which one is it (or is it something else) ?

1. Because it isn't a problem, no need to do anything?

2. Because it is a problem, not man made, and so nothing can be done about it, let nature do it's thing?

3, Because it is a problem, but though it is man made, no amount of effort can change it soon enough to matter, so why bother?

4. Because it is a problem, and though it is man made, doing something about it would be too costly to society, there is no way we can afford what needs to be done in order to do something about it?

5. Both #3 and #4


Whichever is your reason, do you have any science that corroborates your position (provide links) ?

 

No. 1. It is not a problem. Climate sensitivity is too low to create a problem.

 

Really? Did Christopher Monkton tell you that? Because not even Judith Curry would agree with that one https://judithcurry.com/2019/04/01/whats-the-worst-case-climate-sensitivity/

 

Nir Shaviv explains.
". . . Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals. . . . "
My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

 

Really you don't know how they set up that media circus in the Senate room?

===

and Al Gove made a LOT of money pushing dishonest misleading climate arguments. His presentation was ruled in England as having a lot of errors ruled as unreliable:

An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore

He was also exposed as a hypocrite on HIGH energy usage of his very large and expensive homes, while he was at the time telling us to reduce consumption a lot.

Both of them made a lot of money at the expense of the average American and Gore LIED about the CO2 changes in his dishonest 2006 presentation, he made it appear that Temperature is following CO2 on that giant stage presentation.

He had ignored a number of peer reviewed papers showing the very opposite.

Your reply indicate that I can't take YOU seriously when you are that ignorant of their dishonest behavior and hypocrisy over the years.

 

Vacuous allegations, without substantiation ( hence the adjective 'vacuous' ) are non arguments, especially the kind employing hyperbolic language, so either back up your claims, otherwise I will file your opinion in the rant file.

Policies to deal with climate change cannot realistically order citizens to destroy their homes and move into smaller residences, and the anecdotal quip you registered against Gore is a rhetorical device, a pseudo debate trick, not a properly framed rebuttal.

You make claims, back them up, because I'm not one to take the words of PF members for anything.

 

No you just ignored the actual COURT ruling I already posted (Post #109) that it really happened, but your prejudice is preventing you from seeing it, and for the Senate room set up, that was admitted by Senator Wirth himself, again your ignorance of the event that happened 33 years ago is caused by deliberate ignorance and prejudice.

I have known this for many years because I actually read the sources.

From the ABC News link you ignored:

By MARCUS BARAM
February 12, 2009,

"One day before Friday's announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors.

The ruling came on a challenge from a UK school official who did not want to show the film to students. High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

======

Frontline

And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

… What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. … So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony.

Interviews – Timothy Wirth | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS

April 2007

=====

You have been thoroughly REFUTED!

LOL

 

So a judge's ruling is the final arbiter of the argument?

I doubt it. The debate continues.

 

The debate is long over since Gore was exposed as being wrong about the presentation he made. CO2 follows temperature change with long lags as shown in numerous published papers.

Gore made it seem it was the other way around, this is now the second time I have pointed this out you ignored it once you going to ignore it again?

Yes it is a ruling he had to follow, that sounds like a final decision to me.....

 

Gore made a lot of assertions, what portion was correct, what portion was wrong?

I am not making any judgement until I know the factual ratio. No one bats a thousand, but if he has got it 85% correct, the film is worthy paying attention to and notes taken.

 

Once again you tell silently everyone that you didn't read the link I posted, the answer to your questions are in there.

You are clearly not that motivated to make an honest debate, you are running on prejudice which is why you didn't know about the court ruling and misbehavior of the two Senators in the first place despite that it happened over 10 years ago and was all over the blogs and forums when it happened.

It was a climate realist who is taught you about it, but you would get a F grade if you don't improve.

Not going to play your moving the goal post game.

 

YOu realize there is an astronomical amount of reading to do on climate change, and I'm just poking my head in that door, so please abstain with your judgmental attitudes, and I will return the favor.

As for game, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

The excuses comes out in a gallop over a tiny article about Gores misleading tripe, gave you a full quote about the Senators antics but you manage to find time making a bunch of goal post moving comments right here in the thread about it.

I did most of the work, but somehow 5 minutes of reading the two articles that I already quoted from was too much for you.

You have posted at least 6 times over this simple stuff and you still don't know and still complain.

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

I am done with your nonsense here.

 

Good, now pester someone else.

 

I didn't pester you once, it was your dishonest goal post moving replies that caused me to go expose your lack of effort to understand what I was telling you with hard evidence to which you barely glanced at, it became apparent you were never going to discuss it honestly and openly, yet you amazingly find time to post many empty replies over it while ignoring the two sources that 100% supported my position to which you NEVER countered at all.

It was a SIMPLE easy to understand topic which you draw it out with lazy replies, acting clueless in the process.

Ha ha ha......

cheers.

 

You did, now go.

 

LOL

You still can't be honest about it, you claim I pester but you make no case for it and you replied to everything I posted about Gore and Wirth and my counter replies.

You are embarrassing yourself here.

 

The failure of the AGW paradigm in attempts to solve the climate sensitivity puzzle has been well documented.

Climate at a Glance: Climate Sensitivity
The value of "climate sensitivity was first postulated over 30 years ago, but the actual value is still highly uncertain.

Declaring future predictions of global warming “settled science” requires a precise calculation of future temperatures; climate science still can't do it with precision.

Learn More

 

This may explain, in part, why "consensus" AGW climate science has failed on the puzzle of climate sensitivity.
Mainstream Science Says CO2 Radiatively Cools Most Of The Atmospheres Of Earth, Venus, And Mars
By Kenneth Richard on 12. August 2021

Share this...
For decades it has been widely accepted that rising CO2 is responsible for radiatively cooling the air above the troposphere to space…even where space is warming.
It is “well recognized” that CO2 molecules radiatively warm the tropospheres (~0-12 km) of planets like Earth, Mars, and Venus, but they otherwise radiatively cool the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere (~30 to 700 km) – most of the atmosphere – in the 15 μm band (Sharma and Wintersteiner, 1990, Dickinson et al., 1987). . . .

 

Has the consensus on the issue changed now, because of AR6?

 

Scientists aren't really the audience for AR6.