Originally posted by Metal Brain
I strongly disagree. As long as people are promoting the myth that man is the primary cause of global warming I think it is very important to set the record straight with an REAL poll as opposed to a poll that does not exist.

"I think that anti-scientific rhetoric needs to change, and we need to start trusting the data."

It is ironic that you are ...[text shortened]... g today and trying to digress away from explaining it will only make you look foolish and naive.

It is totally unscientific to stake your case on an interview of a retired scientist that supports your established position on such a complex global issue.

The poll doesn't work because science is much more nuanced. You are right, though, that it is not "settled science" as some may suggest. If it were settled then hopefully we could have moved on to other things. It is true (perhaps even obvious) that there's no solid data that CO2 levels alone causes global warming. If anything, it seems you are simply stating that scientific certainty is a myth, which is also obvious.

But there is a clear consensus. New publications come out every day, supporting the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/336
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n5/full/nclimate2896.html
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13487
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html

These are published in the best journals in the world, arguing (with real data, rather than speculation and anecdotes) for anthropogenic causes driving climate change.

If anthropogenic causes are myths, why don't more climate scientist come forward with comprehensive meta-data article, or attempt to set the record straight? Why don't they publish the data? Their duty as scientists is to report the evidence after all. It seems this duty is left to retired emeritus professors, conspiracy theorists, and corporate shills.

Singer's argument boils down to "there's not enough data". Almost all of these global climate articles include the caveat that their datasets are incomplete. But in order for his definition of anthropogenic global warming to be unequivocally true you'd need a comprehensive data set from the entire planet that does not exist. Think about the actual experiment he's proposing. He essentially posits a pseudo-scientific argument where there will always be some other explanation for why the planet is rapidly warming and sea levels are rising and glaciers are melting. Obviously climate models are inherent speculative. That's the whole idea. But the data is clear. Read the articles, not the interviews of retired scientists.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are the one looking foolish and naive, again parroting a 92 year old physicist who thinks Phobos is an alien construct. The point to that is he is easily led astray. Plus his science is 60 years old.

You are a liar and you know you are lying. Show us your source of information so we can all have a good laugh. 🙄

Originally posted by wildgrass
It is totally unscientific to stake your case on an interview of a retired scientist that supports your established position on such a complex global issue.

The poll doesn't work because science is much more nuanced. You are right, though, that it is not "settled science" as some may suggest. If it were settled then hopefully we could have moved on to o ...[text shortened]... whole idea. But the data is clear. Read the articles, not the interviews of retired scientists.

"It is totally unscientific to stake your case on an interview of a retired scientist that supports your established position on such a complex global issue."

He was not retired when he did the interview. Retired or not he has qualifications just as good as any climate scientist. Look it up yourself. By the way, did you even read the article?

"It is true (perhaps even obvious) that there's no solid data that CO2 levels alone causes global warming. If anything, it seems you are simply stating that scientific certainty is a myth, which is also obvious."

What certainty? Be specific so I can prove you wrong....again.

"But there is a clear consensus. New publications come out every day, supporting the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real."

I never said anthropogenic global warming was not real. You are doing the same thing sonhouse always does, lie about what I said even though my opening post shows what I really said and you cannot debate honestly without losing face. In my OP I clearly state that anthropogenic global warming is a factor (mere factor) and the myth is that man is the primary cause and no poll exists to show it despite the lies of the consensus project and other ridiculous websites that deliberately peddle lies.

You are still back at square one because you have proved nothing I said to be wrong. Let me say it again, THERE IS NO POLL OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS TO SHOW MAN IS THE "PRIMARY CAUSE" OF GLOBAL WARMING.

You did not read the interview with S. Fred Singer. If you did you would not think all dta matters. Heat island data is worthless and should be treated as such, but global warming alarmists cherry pick data that is irrelevant because that is the only way they can fool people into thinking they have a point.

Climate models are very unreliable. They are wrong much more than they are right for a very good reason, they assume too much. They assume CO2 causes more warming than it does so they fail. It is pretty simple: wrong input, wrong output. They will only get acceptable results when they have the right input and right now they are still guessing. You cannot make accurate predictions by guessing. That is only good for trial and error.

Read the interview with Singer, the whole article! If you don't I will know it.

You still have not given an explanation of what caused the Pliocene Epoch to be so warm. Man did not exist so it is not anthropogenic, it isn't CO2 since we have the same CO2 levels now and it is a lot cooler than the Pliocene right now. Tell us all what the natural cause was. You already tried and failed didn't you?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
In my OP I clearly state that anthropogenic global warming is a factor (mere factor) and the myth is that man is the primary cause and no poll exists to show it despite the lies of the consensus project and other ridiculous websites that deliberately peddle lies.

You are still back at square one because you have proved nothing I said to be wrong. Let ...[text shortened]... cene right now. Tell us all what the natural cause was. You already tried and failed didn't you?

Once again, it's completely unproductive to argue that, since you think anthropogenic causes are merely factors rather than the primary factor, then we should disregard solid data on the subject. It's a silly argument over rather pointless semantics.

I read the long interview. It's an information-rich opinion from 16 years ago. I'm not saying that to discount it, just describing the context. In the interview he says things that are obviously false such as "since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling..". The data proves otherwise: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf

He goes on to say that "...the models are getting better. And perhaps in ten years we will have models that can be trusted..". On this point history proves him right. Now the models are better, mostly because scientists have a larger time frame of comprehensive data, and more comprehensive dataset than we had 16 years ago. In general, I still agree with his criticism of climate models. Predicting the future is hard and exquisitely complex.

He's also a lobbyist with a clear agenda. That doesn't necessarily discount what he's saying but it should be disclosed as a potential conflict of interest when considering his opinion. So when he says things like "I think the warming will be much less than the current models predict. Much less... what difference does a 1-degree change make over 100 years?" I take it with a grain of salt. A lot of people pay the company he founded a lot of money to say things like that. I'd rather see the data.

He did not do a very good job answering the important question: What data would convince you that you were wrong? He basically said we needed an extremely high level of detail in all the data, globally, and ultimate confidence in the future prediction models. This is a very difficult (if not impossible to achieve) bar considering the scale on which these climate questions are being asked. It's the type of argument people make when they are never going to be convinced they were wrong.

And, ultimately, the data do not support the argument. You keep saying that "not all data is equal" which is of course true. But we're talking about a scientific consensus that has been built and reinforced by massive sources of data for a while now. If you read some of the many research studies I've posted, they're well-controlled, in good journals, with clear conclusions. I don't buy the argument that they're only doing it because its what their funding agencies want to hear. If the methods were garbage, they wouldn't be published, or would be retracted. Obviously, caveats exists, and scientists are usually careful not to overinterpret their own work.

No I don't pretend to know what happened in the Pliocene. But it was a really really long period of time. Lots of things happened. Maybe a million years from now it will be hotter. The data being collected now identifies clear anthropogenic factors that cause global warming. These factors are being highlighted in the media and politics because these are the factors that we can actually do something about. If you like our current climate, you should be interested in finding ways to maintain it.

It sounds like Singer wants the world to be a lot hotter. Because of the Vikings. Or something.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are a liar and you know you are lying. Show us your source of information so we can all have a good laugh. 🙄

I posted it a year ago or more:

http://www.rense.com/general20/eisenhowerwh.htm

He thinks Phobos is hollow, making it certain to be made by intelligence of some kind.

And this:

"1960: Artificial Phobos hypothesis[edit]
In a 1960 Astronautics newsletter, Singer commented on Iosif Shklovsky's hypothesis[31][32] that the orbit of the Martian moon Phobos suggests that it is hollow, which implies it is of artificial origin. Singer wrote: "My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big 'if' lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them."[33] Later measurements confirmed Singer's big "if" caveat: Shklovsky overestimated Phobos' rate of altitude loss due to bad early data.[34] Photographs by probes beginning 1972 show a natural stony surface with craters.[35] Ufologists continue to present Singer as an unconditional supporter of Shklovsky's artificial Phobos hypothesis.[36]

Time magazine wrote in 1969 that Singer had had a lifelong fascination with Phobos and Mars's second moon, Deimos. He told Time it might be possible to pull Deimos into the Earth's orbit so it could be examined.[37] During an international space symposium in May 1966, attended by space scientists from the United States and Soviet Union, he first proposed that manned landings on the Martian moons would be a logical step after a manned landing on the Earth's moon. He pointed out that the very small sizes of Phobos and Deimos—approximately 14 miles (23 km) and eight miles (13 km) in diameter and sub milli-g surface gravity—would make it easier for a spacecraft to land and take off again."

As we found out with Rosetta, small moons with very low surface gravity makes them hard to hold on to. You nead to drill into the ground with rods or some such for hold downs since you could probably jump off Diemos or Phobos and orbit the things. Don't quote me on that, but the gravity is very low.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I posted it a year ago or more:

http://www.rense.com/general20/eisenhowerwh.htm

He thinks Phobos is hollow, making it certain to be made by intelligence of some kind.

And this:

"1960: Artificial Phobos hypothesis[edit]
In a 1960 Astronautics newsletter, Singer commented on Iosif Shklovsky's hypothesis[31][32] that the orbit of the Martian moon ...[text shortened]... off Diemos or Phobos and orbit the things. Don't quote me on that, but the gravity is very low.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Just like I said, a conspiracy website by Jeff Rense peddling UFO conspiracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Rense

Hilarious!

Originally posted by wildgrass
Once again, it's completely unproductive to argue that, since you think anthropogenic causes are merely factors rather than the primary factor, then we should disregard solid data on the subject. It's a silly argument over rather pointless semantics.

I read the long interview. It's an information-rich opinion from 16 years ago. I'm not saying tha ...[text shortened]...
It sounds like Singer wants the world to be a lot hotter. Because of the Vikings. Or something.

"Once again, it's completely unproductive to argue that, since you think anthropogenic causes are merely factors rather than the primary factor, then we should disregard solid data on the subject. It's a silly argument over rather pointless semantics."

More non-points from you. Anthropogenic causes are merely factors rather than the primary factor. Look at all the people that tried to prove me wrong and they all failed, including you! The data you go by is cherry picked to include temps in the city (heat island effect) and airports. That is not solid data, it is irrelevant data that any climate scientist of unremarkable intelligence will tell you.....except idiots like James Hansen and other obvious propagandists who have made predictions that failed miserably.

This is a very good argument that you are in denial of because GW alarmists like you are just deniers of the science. There is no consensus (of climate scientists) that man is the primary cause. It does not exist and you are still in deep denial of that fact.

"In the interview he says things that are obviously false such as "since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling..". The data proves otherwise: "

The data agreed with him at the time of the interview. At that time it was NOT false at all. You are looking at "revised" data.

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700

Nice attempt to convince people Singer is a liar, but he is not at all.

"He's also a lobbyist with a clear agenda"

What is your source of information?

"A lot of people pay the company he founded a lot of money to say things like that. I'd rather see the data."

Nice conspiracy theory. Are you buddies with sonhouse who like repeating the latest alien conspiracy theories too?

🙄🙄

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Once again, it's completely unproductive to argue that, since you think anthropogenic causes are merely factors rather than the primary factor, then we should disregard solid data on the subject. It's a silly argument over rather pointless semantics."

More non-points from you. Anthropogenic causes are merely factors rather than the primary factor. L ...[text shortened]... you buddies with sonhouse who like repeating the latest alien conspiracy theories too?

🙄🙄

Here are a bunch of Singer's quotes and refutations by sceptical science:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

You are hanging on the wrong tailcoats. Whats up with that anyway? You his nephew or something? He help get you a job? Singer has an obvious agenda and that is not the way you do science.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Once again, it's completely unproductive to argue that, since you think anthropogenic causes are merely factors rather than the primary factor, then we should disregard solid data on the subject. It's a silly argument over rather pointless semantics."

More non-points from you. Anthropogenic causes are merely factors rather than the primary factor. L ...[text shortened]... you buddies with sonhouse who like repeating the latest alien conspiracy theories too?

🙄🙄

You're not debunking any important myth by stating that "anthropogenic factors are factors, but just not the primary factor", driving global warming. It's a myopic and unscientific viewpoint.

Most importantly, it's impossible to prove wrong. As an analogy, smoking (statistically) causes lung cancer and there is overwhelming data, and near-unanimous support of this conclusion. With the appropriate data, however, this conclusion remains falsifiable.

One can, however, make the statement that "smoking is not a primary factor causing lung cancer because non-smokers still get lung cancer" (analogous to "humans don't cause global warming because it also happens naturally".) This statement cannot be proven false, and should not be considered a conclusion at all, since it relies on an undisclosed "other factor". Of course there are other factors, but that fact does not nullify the primary conclusion. What Singer argues in his opinion piece is considered pseudoscientific, since it relies on an unfalsifiable argument. Since smoking cessation reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk of getting lung cancer, there is no sense quitting smoking, right?

Ask yourself (as the interviewer asked Dr. Singer): What data would convince you that anthropogenic factors of global warming are real, and should be actively mitigated? If your conclusion is that no such data exists, then you are either delusional or overly dogmatic on the issue.

Also, it's not a conspiracy to claim a conflict of interest, and if you've ever seen a scientist give a talk there are often frequent conflict disclosures. Since many of the statements in his interview do not rely on actual data, we're stuck with the dilemma of whether to trust his opinion. Thus, the conflict is directly relevant to the discussion.

Originally posted by wildgrass
What data would convince you that anthropogenic factors of global warming are real, and should be actively mitigated?

The critical question he will never give a straight answer to, and we here all know why, is;

How would you expect the data or observations to be different from what they are if there is currently man made global warming and man is the the primary cause and the warming is such that we should do something about it?

Originally posted by humy
The critical question he will never give a straight answer to, and we here all know why, is;

How would you expect the data or observations to be different from what they are if there is currently man made global warming and man is the the primary cause and the warming is such that we should do something about it?

Yeah, climate change deniers enjoy saying obvious things like "we're not the primary factor" and "CO2 might not affect atmospheric temperature" as if they're debunking some elaborate hoax. At first I thought it was just a misunderstanding of the facts, but it appears instead to be willful ignorance of the data, the science, and the key policy issues.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Yeah, climate change deniers enjoy saying obvious things like "we're not the primary factor" and "CO2 might not affect atmospheric temperature" as if they're debunking some elaborate hoax. At first I thought it was just a misunderstanding of the facts, but it appears instead to be willful ignorance of the data, the science, and the key policy issues.

And his being besotted with a 90 year old physicist, Singer.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here are a bunch of Singer's quotes and refutations by sceptical science:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

You are hanging on the wrong tailcoats. Whats up with that anyway? You his nephew or something? He help get you a job? Singer has an obvious agenda and that is not the way you do science.

Skeptical science is a worthless website that peddles lies and I proved that my times to you. That fact that they rely on the consensus project is proof they are an extremely unreliable source of information like your alien conspiracy website.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Skeptical science is a worthless website that peddles lies and I proved that my times to you. That fact that they rely on the consensus project is proof they are an extremely unreliable source of information like your alien conspiracy website.

I still boils down to Singer and his disciples and the rest of the scientific community. Real science is not done by 90 year olds. Besides, we have sensor technology a thousand times better than Singer played with back in 1878.....

Originally posted by wildgrass
You're not debunking any important myth by stating that "anthropogenic factors are factors, but just not the primary factor", driving global warming. It's a myopic and unscientific viewpoint.

Most importantly, it's impossible to prove wrong. As an analogy, smoking (statistically) causes lung cancer and there is overwhelming data, and near-unanimous supp ...[text shortened]... emma of whether to trust his opinion. Thus, the conflict is directly relevant to the discussion.

"You're not debunking any important myth by stating that "anthropogenic factors are factors, but just not the primary factor", driving global warming. It's a myopic and unscientific viewpoint. "

Really? Then why did so many people try to prove man is the primary factor on this thread and all failed miserably? They obviously thought it was important and so did you. Now what you were convinced was relevant before is now not important to you now. You are contradicting yourself and now that others are seeing the weakness in your argument humy comes to defend you as he does with anyone that suffers debate stress from peddling myths that he himself promoted and subsequently back peddled from.

There is no poll of climate scientists to suggest man is the primary cause, yet there is a poll of mere scientists (not climate scientists) that does use the term primary cause. Polls are obviously avoided when they think it will not prove their case. This is just more selective bias in a manipulative way to mislead people into giving up their money to government and government has made no commitment to earmark the money for reducing fossil fuel burning. Al Gore could have suggested putting the money in a lockbox but did not. Don't you feel uneasy about the possibility that money will be used for war? By the way, have you ever thought about how much fossil fuel is burned by military aircraft? Do you even think about the hypocrisy of fueling aircraft and aircraft carriers when it comes to global warming?

"It's a myopic and unscientific viewpoint."

That is not true and you and everyone on this thread knows it. Absolutely ridiculous! How much man is influencing the climate is extremely important to determining if taking action will even work and be a total waste of money. Even a child could tell you are being completely dishonest in a feeble effort to save face in your losing argument.

"Since many of the statements in his interview do not rely on actual data, we're stuck with the dilemma of whether to trust his opinion."

That is an obvious lie. Like sonhouse you have resorted to outright slander because you cannot refute his statements with facts. You have also avoided revealing your sources of information I have asked for and that suggests those were lies too. Funny how all you alarmists resort to lies in the end. Give it up or debate without the lies. You are not fooling anybody.