Eat that GW believers!

[Jccarlton]

Please provide that documentation and references. Real science and not the hockey stick crap. I'm tired of having to do heavy lifting to prove my points while all you provide are airy moralizations. I've got the stuff to backup what I say. Do you?

The top ten reasons to hate the AGW cabal
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my- ... ge-debate/

Hmmm, Dr Roy Spencer. He believes in intelligent design instead of evolution. Yeah everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Humorous that you chose to use a airy moralists as your witness. Btw, I don't "hate" any who disagree with me.

You still haven't provided any documentation of your views. Your unarguable views. I'm sorry, but you are going to have to provide something other than name calling and yet more "I'm on the moral high ground and your not" BS

[flying_eagle]

You need proof of environmental change by humans? Hmm, How about CO2 causing acidification of the ocean and its consequence. How do you justify that as not a problem. What is wrong with taking on a moral decision? No one is accusing you of a lack of that, just reminding you, in a most respectful way, to consider your responsibility to how your existence depends on the only "natural spaceship" you have. As I already indicated, the denial argument is a waste of time for many reasons.

[TallDave]

How do you justify that as not a problem.

Easy. No one actually knows for sure if it's a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

It might even be a net benefit to ocean life. A lot of people don't seem to realize the oceans aren't becoming acidic, they're becoming less alkaline.

Anyways, given how much salinity has varied, its likely ocean life has seen far bigger changes than this.

What is wrong with taking on a moral decision?

What's wrong with wasting trillions on a non-problem? A lot. People will die sooner, have less to eat, less money to spend on necessary healthcare, less energy to heat their homes... this is a big deal. You need to be a lot more certain than we are now.

One must recognize their responsibility in any spaceship designed to carry our ethos.

Indeed. We need to be sure we aren't wasting trillions of dollars that could be spent on something useful. It would be nice if the people at CRU were taking their responsibility more seriously.

[flying_eagle]

How do you justify that as not a problem.

Easy. No one actually knows for sure if it's a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

It might even be a net benefit to ocean life. A lot of people don't seem to realize the oceans aren't becoming acidic, they're becoming less alkaline.

Anyways, given how much salinity has varied, its likely ocean life has seen far bigger changes than this.

What is wrong with taking on a moral decision?

What's wrong with wasting trillions on a non-problem? A lot.

TallDave,
Correction on your benefit. According to your reference, the benefit would be in taking out CO2 and sequestering it from the atmosphere. A sort of circular logic to most of this whole denial idea. The biological problem is still the problem. Manmade problems. Can't deny them. Many just don't want to accept their hand in the problem.

[Jccarlton]

You need proof of environmental change by humans? Hmm, How about CO2 causing acidification of the ocean and its consequence. How do you justify that as not a problem. What is wrong with taking on a moral decision? No one is accusing you of a lack of that, just reminding you, in a most respectful way, to consider your responsibility to how your existence depends on the only "natural spaceship" you have. As I already indicated, the denial argument is a waste of time for many reasons.

Because I don't buy the assumptions behind your arguments. Or, with good reason as it turns out, any of the arguments put forward by the AGW cabal. Simply put the physics do not support causation. proxy data won't change that. Monkeying with the surface station data won't change that. Making unprovable links to unrelated occurrences won't change that. Now if you have anything that is not from cabal sources, which unfortunately is the now discredited entire published papers for the last 20 years on any of the relevant areas, put it up so we can see for ourselves. Otherwise you got nothing.
As for whats wrong with your moral stance read Thomas Sowell's A Conflict Of Visions. Let's just say social justice has a lot to answer for.

[alexjrgreen]

Now if you have anything that is not from cabal sources, which unfortunately is the now discredited entire published papers for the last 20 years on any of the relevant areas, put it up so we can see for ourselves. Otherwise you got nothing.

Suppressing scientific papers isn't going to help, surely?

[Jccarlton]

Now if you have anything that is not from cabal sources, which unfortunately is the now discredited entire published papers for the last 20 years on any of the relevant areas, put it up so we can see for ourselves. Otherwise you got nothing.

Suppressing scientific papers isn't going to help, surely?

Suppressing papers is the whole problem. We now have 20 years of garbage science because people critical of AGW were suppressed by the cabal and did not get published or grants. Meanwhile we have spent billions on garbage creating a scientific literature of nonsense. It's going to take ten years at least to rebuild climatology's credibility. That's if it can be done at all.

[alexjrgreen]

We now have 20 years of garbage science

But we don't. We have 20 years of potentially one-sided science.

You don't fix that by suppressing the existing papers. You fix it by publishing the other side of the argument and seeing what survives.

[Jccarlton]

We now have 20 years of garbage science

But we don't. We have 20 years of potentially one-sided science.

You don't fix that by suppressing the existing papers. You fix it by publishing the other side of the argument and seeing what survives.

We have garbage. The AGW crowd DESTROYED the raw data rather than allow it to be analyzed by "unfriendly" people. It will have to be reconstructed, if that is even possible. That means that nothing they did can be analyzed or replicated with any degree of confidence. We are left with a ton of questions about how it was all done and no way to get answers. That is the significance of the data dump. We have nothing but a bunch of papers that are demonstrated lies. It's got to be rebuilt from scratch.

[alexjrgreen]

It will have to be reconstructed, if that is even possible.

It's proxy data. Why can't it be reconstructed?

[kcdodd]

Statistically, for any random action the number of beneficial outcomes is finite while the number of detrimental outcomes is unbounded. Therefor it is far more likely that a random act on the part of humans will be detrimental. If we don't know the impact of what we are doing it's best to just stop doing it. Humans already have a pretty good record of being able to change the environment.

[icarus]

... the wheels fell off the AGW gravvy train, and the big crock that it was has spilled all over the fast spinny thing.

Don't want to gloat, but I told you so. Dangerous times for a discredited science and scientists generally, it may accelerate the slide back into mysticism and romantic mindsets.

And they still haven't answered my question of how they solved modelling the vertical transport due to turbulent mixing question.

[rcain]

to sugest that introducing toxic waste into the environment is good for us (directly), is an oxymoron.

our task now is to separate what is 'real' climate/earth science from what is suspect or ouright bogus. certainly to separate real science from poilitical spin and hyperbole.

this whole AGW issue, especially the latest 'storm' about the leaked emails from Sussex, has damaged the reputation of all science, even the good stuff.

the need for/to present authoratative data on what impact we are having on the planet, is more urgent than ever.

[Jccarlton]

It will have to be reconstructed, if that is even possible.

It's proxy data. Why can't it be reconstructed?

Here's what happens when somebody tries:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/w ... more-13373
The bad overwrites the good. Once the crap gets in the milk you can't make the milk usable again. Especially when the bad is "pushed" which the cabal is guilty of doing repeatedly.

[IntLibber]

to sugest that introducing toxic waste into the environment is good for us (directly), is an oxymoron.

our task now is to separate what is 'real' climate/earth science from what is suspect or ouright bogus. certainly to separate real science from poilitical spin and hyperbole.

this whole AGW issue, especially the latest 'storm' about the leaked emails from Sussex, has damaged the reputation of all science, even the good stuff.

the need for/to present authoratative data on what impact we are having on the planet, is more urgent than ever.

Sorry but this sort of statement demonstrates you've got a religious bias. Your mind is obvioiusly made up. You need to realize all the information and memes that have programmed you into having that made up mind were lies. You need to go into deprogramming as badly as someone rescued from a cult.