Friday, December 5, 2014

Way Past the Deadline Claims

Dear Mr. Keeting:
I accept your challenge.
Under the rules of the Scientific Method, if the empirical evidence doesn't match hypothetical projections, the hypothesis can be deemed disconfirmed.

RESPONSE: This is a fatal misunderstanding of the scientific method. Bad start. Review this submission here for one example of someone that has already made this claim. Essentially, climate change is not a single theory. It is a umbrella term that covers at least hundreds, maybe thousands, of different theories coming together. Each of these theories is independently tested and verified. If you wish to prove AGW is not valid this way, you would have to independently invalidate each of those theories.

1) CAGW's global temp projections/Water Vapor
CAGW "best guess" Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is 3.0C~4.5C by 2100. This projection was calculated by CO2's forcing effect 5.35 x ln(560ppm/280ppm)= 3.7 watts, which, using the Stefan-Boltzman constant, will generate NET global warming of 1.2C by 2100.
The CAGW hypothesis then projects that 1.2C of GROSS CO2 induced warming will generate a "runaway feedback loop" involving ever increasing atmospheric water vapor concentrations, which will multiply this GROSS 1.2C of GROSS potential CO2 warming by a factor of 3 to 4 TIMES, which yields CAGW's NET best guess estimate of 3.0C~4.5C by 2100.
Atmospheric water vapor concentrations are NOT rapidly increasing as the CAGW hypothesis projected as can be seen by NOAA's relative humidity data, NOAA's specific humidity data and NASA's Water Vapor Project (NVAP):
From the above empirical data there is absolutely no signal showing an exponential growth of water vapor concentrations.

RESPONSE: I'm not sure what your point is here. As the temperature goes up, the air can hold more water vapor. As a result, the relative humidity will remain about the same even as the total amount of water vapor in the air increases. Yes, the total amount of water vapor has been increasing.

2) 30-yr PDO cycles and Global warming correlation
There is some sinusoidal variation of water vapor concentrations, but this is better correlated to 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles than to the steady rise in CO2 levels. During 30-yr PDO warm cycles, global temps rise and water vapor concentrations rise due to increased ocean evaporation and during 30-yr PDO cool cycles, water vapor concentrations tend to fall due to slightly reduced ocean evaporation:
You will also notice from the above PDO cycle graph that there is 100.00% correlation between the 30-yr PDO cycles and global temp trends, i.e when the PDO is in a 30-yr warm cycle, global temps rise, and during 30-yr PDO cool cycles, global temp trends fall.
BTW, a 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005 and look what's happened to global temp trends (the last purple segment of the above graph) i.e. falling global temp trends as has happened during every 30-yr PDO cool cycle since 1850.... CAGW is screwed.
During a typical 30-yr PDO cool cycle, global temps fall at around -0.05C/decade, which means that by 2035, RSS global temp anomaly will be around 0.00C, and CAGW projections for 2035 will be around +1.2C...

RESPONSE: This is a well-debunked claim. There is a nice correlation between the PDO and the climate, but not 100% and only before modern times. In fact, this correlation is good proof that the current warming is not due to the PDO because that correlation has been busted in recent decades. You stated it yourself, the PDO went negative in 2005 and look what has happened to global temps. The SST has continued to rise. The 1980s were the hottest decade ever recorded. Every year of the 1990s was hotter than that average, making the 1990s the hottest decade every recorded. Every year of the 2000s was hotter than that average, making the 2000s the hottest decade ever recorded. Every year of the 2010s has been hotter than than that average, making the 2010s the hottest decade every recorded. 2014 is already the hottest year ever measured and it isn't even over yet. For more, read this article here. So, the PDO turned negative, but the planet has continued to get increasingly warmer. Your premise is shown to be false. The fatal flaw in your logic here is supposing AGW means there are no more natural cycles, therefore, the presence of natural cycles proves AGW is not real. The existence of manmade changes to the climate in now way means natural cycles have stopped. The presence of natural cycles in no way demonstrates manmade climate change is not real.

From 2035~2100, in order for the CAGW hypothesis to be confirmed, CO2 forcing would have to generate 0.72C/decade of warming for the remaining 65 straight years to 2100, which is impossible.
Just from today, this is what global trends would have to be starting from TOMORROW to meet CAGW's upper-end "best guess" estimate of 4.5C of CO2 induced warming by 2100:

That is impossible as it already requires a trend of 0.50C/decade starting from tomorrow to reach 4.5C by 2100. The temperature trend from July 1996~ October 2014 has been -0.002C/decade for RSS.
3) CAGW model projections vs. reality
There hasn't been a global warming trend for 18 years and 4 months (RSS data). Accordingly, 73 out of 73 CAGW CMIP5 model projections are now ALL above CAGW projections, which is a 100.00% failure rate:

As explained earlier, it only gets worse from here because of the PDO cool cycle we're in now.
This complete model failure is already sufficient to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis as NO model projected flat global temp trends exceeding 15 years. It has already been 18 years and 3 months... Reality already is outside the 95% confidence intervals of the CAGW model projections, which is sufficient for the CAGW hypothesis to be disconfirmed.

RESPONSE: I was expecting you to pull out something from Roy Spencer and you did not fail. This graph above has been shown to be fraudulent and purposefully doctored to provide false results. In fact, your entire argument about models is fatally flawed and very typical. Read my comments here.

4) Polar Ice Extents
The CAGW hypothesis projected that rising CO2 levels would cause BOTH polar ice extents to shrink. This has NOT happened. The Arctic Ice Extent did start to shrink since 1994 when the 30-yr AMO warm cycle started, but since the AMO peaked in 2007, the Arctic Ice Extent has slowly stared to recover. The 2012 Arctic Ice Extent record was an outlier caused by one of the longest and strongest Arctic cyclones in 50 years that occurred in August 2012. Prior to the August 2012 cyclone, Arctic Ice Extents were 2 million KM^2 larger than 2007 levels. Moreover, 2013 was the largest year-on-year Arctic Ice Extent recovery ever recorded, which shows that 2012 was an outlier year:

Antarctic Ice Extents have actually GROWN over the past 35 years, even though all CAGW models predicted it should have been shrinking... As a matter of fact, earlier this year, the Antarctic shattered the 35-yr Antarctic Ice Extent record:

This is just another example of the CAGW models being useless and unskillful, which means the CAGW hypothesis is useless and unskillful and doesn't reflect reality.

RESPONSE: Claims about the ice extent are false for both poles. The Arctic sea ice extent is most definitely not recovering. The sea ice extent increased in 2013, but that was relative to an incredibly bad year of ice extent in 2012. The level in 2014 was lower. The trend in the ice extent is clear. As for the ice extent in Antarctica, the continent is losing massive amounts of ice every year. This melted fresh water is diluting the sea water around the continent, lowering the freezing point. The projections of ice melting at both poles is actually turning out to be lower than the reality. You also forgot to mention Greenland. This claim has been made many times and is still false, no matter how many times someone makes it.

5) Sea Level Rise
The CAGW hypothesis projected a rapid rise in sea levels, but this is not happening. According to the peer-reviewed paper Jevrejeva et al 2014,
The rate of sea level rise in the early 20th century was only 2.03 mm/yr from 1904–1953 and actually fell to 1.45 mm/yr from 1954 to 2003..
So, from 1904 to 1953 , CO2 levels increased by about 15 ppm, and sea levels rose by 2.03 mm/yr, while from 1953 to 2003 , CO2levels increased by around 75 ppm, and sea level rose by 1.45 mm/yr. There is no correlation to sea level rise to CO2 level rise....
Accordingly, we can conclude that sea level rise has actually decelerated by 40% during the same span of years that CO2 levels were increasing by 500% (15 ppm to 75 ppm), an inverse correlation.
This establishes a strong lack of correlation between CO2 forcing and sea level rise acceleration.
This is further enforced by the new paper Jevrejeva et al 2014, which shows a mere 7 INCHES of SLR over the past 200 years...
As an excuse to explain away the total lack of a statistically significant global warming trend for the past 15~18 years (depending on temp database used), CAGW advocates suggest that the "missing heat" was buried in the oceans. However, during the past 10 years, sea level rise has actually FALLEN 30% (Cazenave et al 2014), which should NOT be possible given the thermal expansion which should have occurred if all this "missing heat" was buried in the oceans. Again, CAGW is busted.

RESPONSE: Man, you really do VERY poor homework. NOAA is pretty clear about sea level rise.

5) Severe Weather incidence projections vs. reality
The CAGW hypothesis postulated that global severe weather should be increasing in both frequency and severity as CO2 levels rise, however, the empirical evidence does not support this.
Even IPCC's 2013 AR5 report admits that their previous projections of increased severe weather incidence have been incorrect as shown in the following direct quotes from AR5:
“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
“There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
Even the IPCC admits there hasn't been any increasing trends in severe weather, and yet CAGW advocates still insist there are. This is a falsehood.

RESPONSE: Once again, already debunked. Or, here. That's for starters. Do some homework.

6) The 1980~1998 global warming trend is NOT unprecedented.
The CAGW hypothesis claims the short 18-yr global warming trend from 1980~1998 was unprecedented and was primarily due to CO2 forcing. This is false.
The HADCRUT4 1980~1998 warming trend was 0.14C/decade, which is even less than the 1910~1928 warming trend which was 0.17C/decade. The 1910~1928 global warming trend could not have been caused by CO2 forcing because CO2 levels hardly increased at all in the early 20th century. Even the IPCC admits that CO2 levels were only sufficient to cause any significant warming from 1950...
On a longer scale, 1980~2014, the global warming trend is 0.17C/decade compared to 1910~1944 was 0.14C/decade, which is virtually identical. Moreover, there hasn't been a RSS global warming trend since July 1996 and no HADCRUT4 global warming trend since the January 2001 (-0.001C/decade).
I'll grant you that the difference between these two 34-yr trends may be attributable to CO2 forcing, but it's only a difference of 0.03C/decade and no where NEAR the approximate 0.30C/decade trend of CO2 forcing that is required to confirm the CAGW hypothesis.
The CAGW hypothesis proposes that CO2 levels were only high enough to cause warming from 1950. If so, then why were global temps flat from 1950~1980 (-0.003C/decade). Why indeed.
So, I've shown that the CAGW hypothesis was wrong in its projections of: global warming trends, polar ice extents, severe weather incidence/severity and sea level rise.
There is virtually NO direct correlation nor a strong signal showing catastrophic global warming is possible per doubling of CO2. The empirical evidence and physics show that CO2's forcing effect is somewhere between 0.03C~0.12C/decade, with the most likely value around 0.06C/decade, which is NOTHING to worry about. This tiny amount of CO2 forcing is consistent with Lindzen Choi et al, Lewis and Curry et al, Harde et al, Otto et al, among many other peer-reviewed papers.

RESPONSE: Sorry, this amount of heating in such a short period of time is unprecedented, as well as the CO2 levels. They have not been witnessed within at least the last 800,000 years. Using Lindzen as a reference is a mistake. Everything he has ever claimed as been debunked.

You will of course call all of this data "cherry picking" as you've already indicated in previous posts, but we both know you owe me $30,000 and that CAGW is a disconfirmed hypothesis.

CONCLUSION: In summary, you failed to provide even one single bit of valid scientific evidence to disprove AGW. Bad show. Sorry, you did nothing to prove global warming is not real.


  1. Lawks a mercy!!!

    Talk about not doing your homework. Now that you have all this stuff from previous challenges, the homework - right down to the specifics - is all here on this blog. Homework consists of reading the previous submissions, seeing your responses, clicking on the links that the new challenger sees as an avenue to counter the arguments you've already stated and go from there.

    I'm aware this isn't the way many deniers work, but it really is that straightforward. Just like the formal debates so many of them seem to be fond of. All your arguments and answers are set out ready for debunking. They just have to choose the weak points and go from there.

    As in a formal debate, all a new challenger has to do is to take notes on what you've stated, check that your links say what you claim, and attack the weaknesses they discern from that. It's almost like the competitors in a debate championship sitting there with fingers in their ears when the opposing team members are speaking. Then getting up and addressing questions nobody asked and weren't interested in anyway.

    Of course, one weak point isn't enough. But it would be nice, just for once, to see one of these people identify one of the known problem issues and argue cogently about that. There are no secrets about the complexities and difficulties in the various relevant topics, but the feeble efforts I've so far seen haven't even been able to correctly describe any of them, let alone extrapolate to the possible implications for the larger picture.

    Mainly because the larger picture was sketched by Arrhenius over a century ago and with all our computers and millions of observations of thousands of phenomena over more than a century, we've hardly changed more than the details. If you did the art gallery viewing thing and stood back a few paces, you'd be hard-pressed to see any difference.

  2. One of the submissions was titled 'Taking Keating Seriously.' I thought at the time someone was finally going to give me something with some scientific thought behind it. I was wrong.

    The problem with deniers doing what you suggested is that doing it would end up convincing them climate change is real.

  3. That is not to say that our Suns radiance approaches laser light intensities here on earth. I'm merely pointing out the whole process experiences a sort of "drag", which means, all things being equal, carbon does not absorb 100% of the radiation it encounters, so it cannot be subject to your values, I'm being EXTREMELY generous here.

  4. No, it does not cut it in half. It only cuts in half for one molecule. Once the photon leaves a molecule it has to get by the other molecules, as well. Lower-level CO2 does not absorb solar radiance. CO2 absorbs IR light, which is absorbed by the upper atmosphere. CO2 is absorbing IR radiated by the heated surface. Absorbing IR radiation by the gas in the atmosphere is called the greenhouse effect and the efficiency of the greenhouse effect depends on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The principle driving gas is CO2. Increase that, and the others follow suit. And, actually, CO2 molecules can absorb and spit out energy as it was just an ordinary Thursday, or any other day of the week. Absorbing and reradiating photons at this wavelength have essentially no effect on the molecule. Once it emits an absorbed photon, it is ready to absorb another. I don't know the exact time span for this, but it happens millions of times per second. The effect is not to warm the planet, but to slow down the rate of cooling, which leads to a warmer planet because the Sun continues to send in more energy. And, to get ahead of any argument, the vast majority of photons pass through the atmosphere without being intercepted by anything. Only a small percentage gets absorbed and reradiated. Good thing, too. We would quickly incinerate otherwise.

  5. As I said in my other response, most photons pass through the atmosphere. The amount that is absorbed and slowed from leaving increases is dependent on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Increase the gases, you increase the amount of IR absorption. Increase the amount of IR absorption and you decrease the rate of cooling. Unfortunately, the rate of heating from the Sun remains the same, so the temperature goes up as the amount of greenhouse gases in increased. Fortunately, it is very inefficient. We would literally incinerate if it was even a little more efficient.

  6. And what happens when Co2, which is converting millions of times per second, discharges into the path of another green house gas which is itself kinda busy and overloaded with stuff to discharge? Also you might want to figure out the exact rate at which load will slow the process at which wavelengths can be absorbed. I'll do it a minute if you don't.

  7. I'm not sure what your last question is, but I can answer the first part. An atom or molecule can absorb only very specific wavelength photons. VERY specific. If they are already excited from absorbing a photon, then they will probably not be able to absorb another photon of that same frequency. I am inclined to say it is 100% certain, but I would have to review the quantum profile of every atom and molecule to be sure of that, so let's just say its a very high percentage. This is one of the reasons it is inefficient (there are others). Again, thank goodness for those inefficiencies. It is scary to think about what it would be like without them.

  8. Let me make it clear what I'm talking about when I say I'm thankful for the inefficiencies. The amount of energy Earth absorbs from the Sun EVERY DAY is about equal to how much ALL OF HUMANITY would generate in 100 YEARS at our current rate.


    PLEASE review this in-detail. This lady needs some serious and harsh scientific debonking.

    Funny that we actually have to give credit to the Democrats for actually acknowledging the issue of AGW.

    Oh, and if this helps, I remember seeing somewhere that she received funding from the fossil fuel industry but can't remember where the source was.


  10. OMG! Depressing, isn't it? I'll do a review.

  11. Thanks Dr. Chris.

    I really meant it when I said that this video needs some serious debunking. It was absolutely terrible on scientific (really? a point in Antarctica of all places?), historical (oversimplified US history), and political/geopolitical basis (Arab nations trying to blow us up? ***CONSPIRACY ALERT!!!***).

    I hope this isn't too much a burden on you (though I'd assume that it will be short work to disprove it, esp after some of those entries in the $30000 challenge).

    Honestly, if people like her can get ahold of Congress, America's doomed.

  12. This one is only a little more than four minutes and won't take long. Some of those videos submitted to the challenge were well over an hour and got pretty tedious. This one will be easy.

  13. As requested:

  14. The breakdown in PDO/surface temperature correlation since the most recent PDO peak, circa 1987:

  15. Same thing when we include solar activity:

  16. By your logic, we are not supposed to know what happened in the world 150 years ago b/c no one has ever built a time machine to visit that time period?

    The reason we know what happened then is b/c people leave "traces". They write letters, they make speeches, etc. etc. etc. and they are well documented and studied by historians today.

    In the same way, although we don't have a "time machine" to go measure CO2 or temperature levels directly, we do know that CO2 and temperature affect the environment around it and we can find this evidence in ice cores, distribution of specific fossils, etc. This is what is known as proxy data, in other words, they are like "natural thermometers and CO2 recorders" that we can "dig up" and examine/analyze. We analyze multiple sources of proxy data and then compare them to see if the sources provide data that agree with each other.

  17. Here's a little hint in case you really haven't figured this out: it's REALLY hard to distinguish poetism in your post when you are outright verbally attacking someone.

  18. I will take your sentiments to heart. Thank you

  19. Its an interesting graph. If I were to take any HadCRUT survey as authoritative, bare in mind there are significant issues with these surveys, I would guess that neither carbon dioxide nor sunspots exactly inform the period between 2000 and today. Not on this timeline. According to the initial assertion, we aught to see temp in line with carbon dioxide...which we don't. In fact the suns activity seems to be waning, that suggests to me that a cooling trend will emerge. My one caveat is that the oceans have something to say here. And neither of us know what the oceans are saying...unless we have suddenly implemented the volume of instrumentation needed to conduct that survey. Seems to me we are inching in that direction. But as I say, we're not remotely close to that end.

  20. Once again, you make statements that are not supported by the evidence. For some reason, you assert HadCRUT data is questionable. It is almost humorous how many times deniers try pull out that data to support their claims. Now, you are dismissing it because it actually shows the problem is real. If you are going to question the data, provide legitimate reasons why. The data is very solid.

    You are also incorrect about the 'initial assertion.' There is nothing that says temperature is going to change with 100% correlation to the change in CO2 levels. It would be nice if it was that simple, but we are actually talking about what may be the single most complex science of all. There are many factors involved and it is not expected to see a daily, monthly, or even yearly change that perfectly matches the change in CO2 levels. What is expected, and what is seen, is a trend showing that, over time, the temperature will increase as the CO2 level increases. We are seeing exactly that.

    You are correct about the solar activity, it is declining slightly. Yes, we should be in a cooling cycle and that is the fatal flaw to arguments we are merely going through a naturally occurring warming cycle. Without our emissions, the climate would actually be cooling.

    We understand the big picture of what is happening with the oceans. We have 'details' to figure out, but that would be at true statement no matter how much we know. If we knew 100 times as much as we know today, there would still be 'details' to figure out. But, those 'details' get smaller over time. We have a significantly better picture of what is going on today that we did 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago. As for the instrumentation issue, take a look at the Argo program. It is a very large deployment of scientific buoys throughout the world's oceans.

  21. Actually, I'm not dismissing hadCRUT or any of its iterations. I'm simply aware of the limitations, which are noted within the hadCRUT surveys. And no, I'm not confused about the assertion, the devil is in the interpretation. You interperate diferently than many of those within your movement.

  22. "If I were to take any HadCRUT survey as authoritative"

    That sure sounds dismissive to me. In fact, the data is authoritative.

    And, no, I do not interpret the science differently. Temperature should go up as the level of greenhouse gases goes up and it does. There are other factors involved and we should see some variability due to these factors and we do. Surely, you're not saying anyone in the climate science community is saying things such as ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc have no effect on the data. At least, I hope you aren't.

  23. I'm not willing to bet on any incomplete survey. The radiative forcing math wrong when it comes to atmospheric carbon dioxide(have you visited this since I brought it up to you). If you haven't parsed the math properly, why should you own my trust? Had CRT, and this is for any of you newbies out there, utilizes speculation to fill out its data sets. Maybe is does so with a high degree of accuracy, but how the hell can any of us know that? We can't check the work. So much of this debate centres around prediction, speculation, and agenda that's it's comical. You want to own exclusive rights to the "science" but you have some lofty problems. Chief among them is credibility. You can't be credible and claim the debate is closed. It's a moronic way of treating science. Hey you know of what we may have discovered since I joined this thread? 1) the earth may have a star treck like deflection shield the repells dangerous electrons...a new shielding effect that till now was not considered... 2) laughing gas developes significant electrical properties when it is cooled to a certain very cold temp... Previously thought to be impossible. 3) the milky way has a new small satellite Galaxy which till now was undiscovered,. 4) the higgs may not be the only boson. 4) I struggle with math, which can be expected from an artist, but so does physicist Christopher Keating...which was previously unheard of

  24. Just when I thought you might be coming in from the cold you lay this big egg. You have your seasons mixed up. This was Christmas, not Easter. There are so many issues with this comment that I am going to address only one. All data is freely available to anyone with an Internet connection. Just a few places that provide all the data you could ever want are the National Climatic Data Center, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the National Snow and Ice Data Center. There are others. That completely invalidates your claim of "exclusive rights" to science. The rest of your claims are equally invalid.

  25. I can tell you didn't read my comment. And I'm sorry you feel that everything in it was untrue. I'm assuming you're not up on the news. you might want to google "new deflection shield discovered", its been observed for two years now). And here's the best part...we can only speculate as to why it exists and how it works...hmmmm

  26. I not only read your comment, but I read it several times. I am well aware of the discoveries. Science is great and there are new discoveries being announced every single day. The part I objected to was the way you want to use these new discoveries to somehow invalidate climate science. That is the worst type of denialism. Tell me, do you refuse medical treatment because new discoveries are being made? Do you refuse to drive your car down the highway at speeds that will easily kill you if something goes wrong because new discoveries are being made? Lot's more examples are available.

    This is exactly what I meant when I remarked about you laying an egg.

  27. I'm happy you read my comment several times! When you and your friends disagree, do you tell them that they are engaging in the worst kind if denialism? I think you must. Otherwise how could you maintain consistency? But calling me a liar wont make your numbers work...

  28. I have just about reached the conclusion you are simply here to take up my time with mindless statements. I have reviewed the comments here and I don't see any where I have called you a liar. And, I am not sure what you are referring to in regards to my math. I am very careful with my math and I'm confident the numbers are correct (although I can't say the same about my keyboarding). I read your comment several times in order to formalize a response that was proper and not too aggressive. As for discussions with my friends, if they want to reject science I move on to another topic (How about them Cowboys!). That is not the case here. This forum was established to discuss climate change and global warming. So far, you have merely presented false arguments and rejected any science you don't like. Please let me know when you have a valid argument to make. Otherwise, I'm tired of wasting my time on you.

  29. You said my statements were untrue, also that I make false arguments. And to answer your previous question of whether I would wait for new innovations in medicine to receive treatment? Actually I might, and so should you in certain cases...example, my scientist uncle rejected all Canadian Cancer treatments for his particular cancer, because he had discovered there was a new treatment offered in the states which showed better potential. He lived. Also a friend of mine researched ocular surgeries to restore his waning sight, he had discovered a less invasive surgery was in development which would net him much better results long term. And the math I'm concerning you with is the very math that hangs your argument. You refuse to recalculate the actual radiative forcing of carbon dioxide. Considering the randomly directional photonic expression, I don't think 100% of those photons are trapped in the greenhouse, as is assumed by the AGW community. I submit the forcing is less than half of what the "consensus" expects it to be. And that Dr. Keating is only a small part of the argument. Its enough to sink you. And don't worry about doing the work of adjusting the math yourself, the genius has agreed to do it for you. I won't even get into how irresesponsible it is of you to suggest that AGW is killing folks equal to what the Nazis inflicted on the world in WW2. Again assigning full value...You think new discoveries in science, which are directly related to this thread, are great, but the AGW science is settled...well why didn't you just say so?

  30. Yes, your statements are untrue and you use false arguments. That is the only way deniers can make any argument at all. Your latest comment is a perfect example. I really am not interested in arguing with you because it is clear you reject anything that does not agree with your preconceived conclusions, but there are other people that read this.

    Each of these medical examples you provided only serve to make my point. None of the examples you provided are a case where someone rejected medical treatment because the ‘science wasn’t settled.’ In fact, all your examples showed people that did their homework and trusted the scientists. Something you and other deniers flat-out refuse to do. What you want to claim is that we need do nothing about climate change because someday they will discover something new that invalidates hundreds of years of scientific research by thousands of highly trained scientists. You want to say that you are smarter and more credible than all of the scientists in the world combined and that we should simple ignore everything we have learned. That is an enormously false argument and you have NOTHING to back it up.

    What is settled about AGW science is that manmade emissions are causing global warming and changing the climate. This indisputable and there is absolutely no science what so ever to refute that. It is settled. Is their more to learn? You bet. There always will be, no matter how much we learn. That does not prevent your claim from being a false argument. And, if you continue to claim otherwise, then, yes, you are a liar because now you know better. To continue to say something you know to be false is a lie.

    The radiative forcing equations have been worked out and I don’t need to duplicate them. To claim my math fails because I refuse to repeat the work of so many others is both a false argument and a lie. And, you don't need to repeat it either. See this Wikipedia article as a start.

    There are plenty of more detailed articles on the subject, including scientific papers. Use Google Scholar to search for the papers and you will find all that you could ever need (my search came up with 296,000 hits). And, do not even try to suggest that because there is some uncertainty in the exact numbers that this somehow suggests it isn’t valid. That would be both a false argument and a lie.

    As for comparing deniers to Nazis, this something that I have don’t do but deniers keep wanting to claim I do. They want to equate the term ‘denier’ to ‘Nazi’ and make it sound like they are being victimized. The term ‘denier’ comes from denying science and that is the only way you can reject AGW.

    However, let’s be clear. AGW is killing thousands of people every year and that number is steadily increasing. By one account, it is already responsible for causing over 400,000 deaths a year. And, it is certainly lowering the standard of living of millions of people. That is not some forecast for the future, that is what is happening right now. By the year 2100, we will be talking about casualties comparable to the total amount of casualties from WWII and the number of people suffering a lowered standard of living will be numbered in the billions.

    I am interested in working towards preventing this monumental amount of human suffering. You don’t seem to care. I advise you to not get on a high horse and try to sound like all holy until you’ve talked to people who have suffered as a result of climate change and tried to explain to them why you think we shouldn’t do anything about it.

    One of the things I keep telling people is that if they act in a civil manner I will respond likewise. But, if they try to bully me they will find out they are picking a fight with the wrong guy. Up to now you have been quite civil and I have tried to reply to you the same way. Now, apparently someone left some coal in your stocking (how appropriate for a denier!) and put you in a bad mood. Come back after you've taken a time out.

  31. Because if you read Dr. Keating's critique, you would see that we have examined the natural cycles and they result in a cooling trend.


    Here's one, there's more out there.




  36. I would Also like an explanation for Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively while still maintaining Glaciation.