tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post3061887179380690938..comments2023-05-16T11:33:40.343-04:00Comments on Dialogues On Global Warming: Commenter Highlights Error in Thought by DeniersTales From The Travelshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12155749992445168195noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-84499001755844149682015-06-13T23:18:59.609-04:002015-06-13T23:18:59.609-04:00This person has been black listed because she not ...This person has been black listed because she not only is offensive, but has apparently decided to leave the realm of civilization behind. People who wish to discuss things in a civil manner are welcome. This person is not among them.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-90838224489715290852015-06-13T22:43:39.865-04:002015-06-13T22:43:39.865-04:00racial slurs are perfectly fine with me, im not a ...racial slurs are perfectly fine with me, im not a weak-assed pussy who gets injured by words.<br />fucking mods who think they can control what other people think need to fuck off from the internet entirely. learn some freedom of speech you childish little bitchSuomy Nonanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-22657025672658408022015-06-11T08:24:20.901-04:002015-06-11T08:24:20.901-04:00Really? Racial slurs are okay with you?Really? Racial slurs are okay with you?Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-67193211008083407632015-06-11T02:42:43.835-04:002015-06-11T02:42:43.835-04:00cool website discus, my favorite bit is the censor...cool website discus, my favorite bit is the censorshipSuomy Nonanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-23233743444616499232015-06-04T16:28:45.439-04:002015-06-04T16:28:45.439-04:00I have to agree with cunudiun's comment about ...I have to agree with cunudiun's comment about this. That is an offensive statement and doesn't apply here. You should be pretty embarrassed. I missed what you said before and I'm embarrassed about that.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-15552204994226489362015-06-04T16:08:02.585-04:002015-06-04T16:08:02.585-04:00When you refer to Wikipedia in that manner, it'...When you refer to Wikipedia in that manner, it's obvious there are some issues at play than science, and you are not seeking a rational response. If I were the moderator of this site, I'm not sure I would permit such language.cunudiunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-74482781662741024452015-06-04T15:52:30.780-04:002015-06-04T15:52:30.780-04:00Here is a rebuttal to your paper.
http://www.world...Here is a rebuttal to your paper.<br />http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979214820037cunudiunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-32614277657602361252015-06-04T10:32:13.340-04:002015-06-04T10:32:13.340-04:00Addressing your comments about the challenge. If y...Addressing your comments about the challenge. If you feel any of what I said was not scientifically valid, feel free to point it out. If you feel you have a proof that would satisfy the challenge, feel free to send it to me. I will not accept it for the challenge (it closed on July 31, 2014), but I will be glad to post it as a guest submission. Use the email address at the top of the page.<br /><br />But, I know you wont' do either, because you can't. Deniers like to say the challenge was rigged or that my responses were not valid, but they can't seem to produce anything to support those claims. The invitation has been open for anyone to respond to. Amazingly enough, not even one person has done so. You would think if my responses were not valid, SOMEONE would be able to show the public why.<br /><br />That alone, tells you everything you need to know about deniers.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-84877436168500691302015-06-04T10:27:47.465-04:002015-06-04T10:27:47.465-04:00First, Wikipedia is a good source to use with non-...First, Wikipedia is a good source to use with non-scientific people. It mostly does a good job explaining scientific concepts without the technical jargon and in terms a layman can understand. But, more importantly, it provides links to authoritative sources. If you are not satisfied with Wikipedia, go to the links and read the source information for yourself. <br /><br />Is that really all that difficult? Education, it's good for the mind.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-90441368388728116582015-06-04T10:24:39.833-04:002015-06-04T10:24:39.833-04:00There are many issues with what you said. The firs...There are many issues with what you said. The first is the paper you referenced which leaves out 93% of all warming - the oceans. And, we can see just what kind of effect that has now that we are going into an El Nino and that energy is being released by the ocean and put into the atmosphere. 2014 was the warmest year on record (interestingly, not included in that paper) and that was without El Nino. This year will be even warmer.<br /><br />As for plants, this is the perfect example of how deniers work. The thing to note is we are not debating whether or not CO2 will increase plant growth - it will. In fact, we are counting on it. The problem is that some of that plant growth is not wanted, such as weeds in farm fields, invasive species that are moving into higher latitudes and ecosystems that are being transformed due to different plants growing there (grasslands and tundra). Also, it has been shown that while CO2 leads to greater plant growth, that growth is concentrated in the plant infrastructure and the crops are actually less nutritious. What that means is as CO2 levels go up, plants will grow more but will provide less nutrition. Couple that with the fact that higher temperatures reduce crop yields and you get a bad combination of lower yields that are also less nutritious.<br /><br />So, why don't deniers want to talk about all of that?Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-85351862989054898392015-06-04T02:44:11.108-04:002015-06-04T02:44:11.108-04:00when you start quoting jewpedia as a "scienti...when you start quoting jewpedia as a "scientific" source, you know you dont have a caseSuomy Nonanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-63879356301986462432015-06-04T02:39:03.875-04:002015-06-04T02:39:03.875-04:00correct! the laughable idea that CO2, absolutely e...correct! the laughable idea that CO2, absolutely essential for any plant life that uses photosynthesis to produce oxygen for us to breathe, is somehow bad for the environment was debunked before this "competition" (and i use that term VERY loosely after seeing the preformed conclusions presented by Christopher) is simply wrong. <br />here is an article summarising the premises and some data to support the arguement that CO2 is not causing 'man made climate change':<br /><br />http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.htmlSuomy Nonanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-32327223569637292015-01-09T19:00:01.847-05:002015-01-09T19:00:01.847-05:00As promised, I provided a more detailed response t...As promised, I provided a more detailed response to your comments.<br /><br />http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/01/doing-homework.htmlChristopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-74857387455985778172015-01-08T12:51:48.581-05:002015-01-08T12:51:48.581-05:00No more so than as a comment. I make a posting of ...No more so than as a comment. I make a posting of comments if they are long, the response is long, or I think it is something of a significant nature. It will be treated the same as it would as a comment, just highlighted.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-61824906351324516862015-01-08T12:21:25.150-05:002015-01-08T12:21:25.150-05:00Hopefully, my notable email or comment is not to b...Hopefully, my notable email or comment is not to be used as a dubious honor.Tahoe Stephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-84990204025871053312015-01-08T11:24:00.859-05:002015-01-08T11:24:00.859-05:00Sometimes, when I find a notable email or comment,...Sometimes, when I find a notable email or comment, I will use it as a new posting.<br /><br />I am sorry to hear you feel threatened, but can fully understand. We can have disagreements, even arguments, but there is absolutely no justification for violence or personal attacks. There is simply no place for it in the discussion.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-11773414267495029672015-01-08T01:04:33.195-05:002015-01-08T01:04:33.195-05:00I'm not sure exactly what you mean by guest su...I'm not sure exactly what you mean by guest submission. Since I never bothered to modify my disqus profile linked to my social media website , I decided to do so today since some people seem hostile, I though better to not use my complete full name.Tahoe Stephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-6902184453356242982015-01-07T22:31:18.565-05:002015-01-07T22:31:18.565-05:00Your comments will be used as a guest submission. ...Your comments will be used as a guest submission. Hopefully tomorrow. I also note, without meaning anything, that you changed your login name.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-91540532822117029112015-01-07T20:31:36.295-05:002015-01-07T20:31:36.295-05:00If you read my comment below in response to Christ...If you read my comment below in response to Christophers'... "The amount of science is absolutely massive..." I have stated, "I am not a scientist and don't pretend to understand many of the theories."... Shows that, in no way, I pretend to understand the math and physics that support the papers that many scientists (award winning, honored, and former IPCC members), challenge with support and theories, that CO2 is the main driving force of climate change. I have actually read the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper, so you are incorrect in your criticism. Though I must confess I didn't understand the details but did get the general hypothesis of it. And that's why I, and other average citizens that don't specialize in climatology, physics or other scientific fields, have to rely on scientists expertise on the matter. Not only do I see a large number of scientist that don't support AGW, as a great indicator that the "science is settled", I also consider the growing number of scientist that are defecting from the IPCC as another indicator that the science is far from settled. <br /><br />What bother's me most is the lag of CO2 behind rise or decline in temperature. It shows that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate. Milankovich cycles, Solar Activity and Cosmic radiation are the more likely candidates. However those elements would be extremely difficult to tax.<br /><br />Trying to insult me, "Please cite papers you've actually read..." does not sway me to listen to your opinions with an open mind. It's really tiring that many AGW advocates bully and insult.Stephanie Sawyernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-46114433784034169112015-01-07T13:31:41.511-05:002015-01-07T13:31:41.511-05:00Ah yes, the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper. Have y...Ah yes, the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper. Have you even read it? Ninety-odd pages complaining about an analogy.<br /><br />Casual observer: "It's so hot and humid outside, it's like a sauna!"<br /><br />Gerlich and Tscheuschner: "NO! A sauna is an enclosure with benches! The outside is NOT enclosed! And there are no benches around! Here, let me show you my calculations on the geographic density of benches. (90 pages later) As you can plainly see, benches are so sparsely distributed they could not possibly have any contribution to the humidity! Your 'sauna' has been falsified!"<br /><br />Please cite papers you've actually read. And you didn't even have to read all of it. The utter failure of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper is found as early as the second half of its abstract.ordealnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-27967676056099109242015-01-07T02:03:17.620-05:002015-01-07T02:03:17.620-05:00I have done immense amounts of research and readin...I have done immense amounts of research and readings about the subject, <br />and have a decent understanding of the IPCC. I am not a scientist and <br />don't pretend to understand many of the theories. Maurice Strong who had much do do with the creation of the IPCC was caught and striped of many of his awards for corruption. The scientists don't control the research projects, the political leaders do. And since the first IPCC report that attributed climate change was natural rather than cause by man, has now become the opposite. It seems the main goal of the IPCC is to end the debate, not prove the science...Climategate. How is that science? Emails that revealed a coordinated effort to keep many esteemed scientist who found that the data didn't add up out of the discussion, and had a preconceived agenda and outcome even before the data was gathered.<br /><br />It's a shame you had to bring up big oil, I was hoping for once that argument wouldn't be made. So lets get back to the scientists that are supposed to be getting that big oil money, and forget for a minute about the politically motivated (carbon tax), lets support alternate energy IPCC. Big oil has HUGE investments tied up in "green" energy. Big Oil also has huge amounts of funding going to many environmental groups, including the likes of the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. So attacking genuine scientists as receiving big oil money is a classic tactic to avoid close examination of the BILLIONS of dollars funding the Global warming project. According to the Washington Post, British Petroleum has donated over $600 million to green groups. The fact that climate change activists have enjoyed such a powerful funding advantage, but yet insist that skeptical AGW scientist are being bought off is pretty ironic!<br /><br />Where is your source from Tol's quote?Stephanie Sawyernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-76832997627962498122015-01-06T23:41:41.039-05:002015-01-06T23:41:41.039-05:00The amount of science is absolutely massive. Thous...The amount of science is absolutely massive. Thousands of climate scientists around the world have worked for decades, going back over 150 years, to figure out what is going on. Science is always questioned, but there is a scientific method to follow. Climate change denying "scientists" routinely reject the scientific method and have almost universally been shown to be taking payoffs from the fossil fuel industry. You are wrong about the IPCC and your statement even shows you have no idea of what you are talking about. Do a little homework and at least learn what the IPCC is and what it does. I love how you mentioned Richard Tol. Tol actually found out the percentage was a little bit higher than 97%. In fact, the 97% consensus has been determined through multiple methods, all of which consistently find the same result - including the denier Tol.<br /><br />http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/deniers-confirm-consensus.htmlChristopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-17345185086686338392015-01-06T21:38:05.438-05:002015-01-06T21:38:05.438-05:00Saying that the science is absolutely conclusive i...Saying that the science is absolutely conclusive is unscientific! Conclusions are not considered facts. I also refute that scientist that dispute, question, challenge AGW are disreputable, but are actually doing what scientist are supposed to do. Empirical evidence continues to discredit the IPCC. I don't hate the statement that 97% of climate scientists agree on AGW, I laugh at that statement since it's so erroneous. There is no consensus when John Cook already planned marketing strategies "cooked" the 97% preconceived conclusion. Dr. Tol has deconstructed the consensus myth. Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper that does that, and they follow up with more supporting evidence after it was refuted.Stephanie Sawyernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-73448233882272450802015-01-06T18:31:48.356-05:002015-01-06T18:31:48.356-05:00The science is absolutely conclusive. There are a ...The science is absolutely conclusive. There are a few climate scientists that do not support the science. Most of those have been to be frauds with manufactured science. Several of them have permanently destroyed their reputations in the scientific community (ie. Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, the Idso family, etc). The fact deniers hate is that 97% of climate scientists and over 80% of all scientists in general acknowledge the reality of AGW. No credible person can produce even one piece of scientific evidence that AGW is not real.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-79074372370324041432015-01-06T17:26:42.829-05:002015-01-06T17:26:42.829-05:00The science is not conclusive! There are many awar...The science is not conclusive! There are many award winning and respected scientists that once believed in AGW that are now rejecting it (along with the many that never supported AGW is the first place). Why is that?Stephanie Sawyernoreply@blogger.com