Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 2:29pm:


Agreed. 

Terrorism is confirmed through objective and verifiable observation.

AGW is merely a hypothesis.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 2:29pm:


Agreed.

There's a chance that future generations will look back at today's reactions and laugh at the AGW alarmists in the same way that we laugh at the flat earth believers today.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 2:29pm:


Hard to say.

No amount of increased storm activity and/or rising sea levels can confirm AGW is actually happening.  It merely provides supporting evidence for the hypothesis. Unlike terrorism, AGW can not be confirmed through objective and verifiable observation (we can observe the storms and rising temperatures etc. but can only hypothesise that humans are to blame).

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 2:29pm:


Agreed.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 11:50am:


Mate, you did a triple face plant and quoted "16 years." We all know you were referring to the David Rose article that claims global warming stopped 16 years ago. Now, I'm pretty sure the graph I posted shows the idiocy of such a claim.

The point I was making was that if you can't identify a warming trend, what's the point in debating the science of AGW with someone who clearly doesn't have a clue.

MOTR wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 7:02pm:



An incorrect assumption, once again.

I was referring to bunny boy's obsession with "16 years".  He's the one who brought it up, not me.

It's totally irrelevant, yet bunny boy goes on and on about it. 

I'm discussing climate change, not weather.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

The amount of radiation leaving the atmosphere can be measured through objective and verifiable observation.
THe change in the amount of radiation leaving the planet over time in the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 can be measured through objective and verifiable observation.
The amount of radiation being re-emitted back towards the planets surface can be measured through objective and verifiable observation.
THe change over time in the planet's net energy loss can be measured through objective and verifiable observation.

Are you saying that the evidence provided by these objective and verifiable observations is credible or not credible?

Remenber - you told us that the measurement of C12/C13 ratios in atmospheric CO2 is not credible evidence to demonstrate that majority of the increase in concentration of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin.  You told us was not credible - and when asked to explain why it wasn't credible - you ran away, displyng your ignorance for all to see.

You are still running away from that question.

Why don't you answer it before you go making more stupid assertions you can't explain?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

No Greggery.  AGW can be confirmed through objective and verifiable observation.

We have so much  objective and verifiable observation accumulated over the last 3 or 4 decades that, according to Australia's Chief Scientist Penny Sackett:

We know, with a high degree of scientific certainty, that the Earth's climate is warming at a fast rate, and that the bulk of this is due to additional greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by humans and the effects of deforestation.

We also know that carbon dioxide is the most important of the greenhouse gases due to the amount emitted, its ability to prevent some of Earth's heat from being discarded back into space and the amount of time it remains in the atmosphere.

That is about as accepted as a theory can get.

What could actually be PROVEN by objective and verifiable observation is if any of the main hypothesis were wrong.  After decades of study and thousands of papers researched on the subject - this is looking less and less likely.


BTW - you may want to try to get your terminology right.  AGW is actually a theory made up of many hypotheses.

You have been shown objective and verifiable observation which support the hypotheses.

You claim this evidence is not "credible" - then run away like a little girl when asked to explain why.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 7:11pm:


You told us on another thread that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing."

Is the planet warming or not?!?!?!

Could you please get your story straight!?!

Did "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing?

Or has the planet not warmed in 16 years?

Which is it?

You seem very confused!

Could you please explain?

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:


Yes - but you gave quite a confusing answer.  I am asking you to clarify it for us.  So we are all on the same page.  OK?

Did "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures to increase

Or has the planet not warmed in 16 years?

How could the sun cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures to increase without warming the planet?
How could  temp lag in the ocean cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures to increase without warming the planet?  And temp lag from what?!?!
How could the greenhouse effect? cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures to increase without warming the planet?
How could cloud cover cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures to increase without warming the planet?
How could magnetic pole position cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures to increase without warming the planet?( Or, how could magnetic pole position cause anything?!?!)


Please explain these things for us

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Yo told us that the earth has not warmed in 16 years.

Now you tell us that Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures to increase.

Has the earth warmed or not?

Your answer seem very contradictory.

Please explain it.

Has the earth warmed or not?