MOTR wrote on Nov 21^st, 2012 at 5:19am:


You really are a coward, progs.

Chances are less than 5% and shrinking as quickly as the Arctic minimum.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:22am:


Answer; no.

At a recent press conference after Sandy storm/hurricane, when asked about the subject, Obama answered the reporter with;

"We can't attribute any particular weather event to climate change." 

[I watched the press conference and saw/heard him say it].

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 8:54pm:

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 couldn't

Are you ready to explain your statement to us yet?
Do you have any basis for it?
Or was it just something Bolty told you?

And yes -  there's a chance the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect.
THere's a chance that any hypothesis could be incorrect.

What we are trying to determine from you at the moment though is why you think the hypothesis that the majority of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is from anthropogenic sources is incorrect.

You think the evidence is not credible - but you can't tell us why

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

So - Dr Spencer tells us in a non peer-reviewed paper that he does not have much confidence in what C12/C13 ratios tell us.  Good on him.

THat might be significant if C12/C13 ratios were the ONLY the evidence that  the majority of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations in recent decades is from anthropogenic sources.  Of course - it isn't:

So what is the full range of supporting evidence?  There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:

- The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
- Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
- Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
- Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
- Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
- Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
- Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
- Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
- Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
- Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

What does Dr Spencer tell us about the rest of the evidence that  the majority of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations in recent decades is from anthropogenic sources?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:



At last an AGW disciple admits that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:



Um, no: I have no intention of explaining anything to you. 

My views on the subject aren't that important (and neither are yours). 

More importantly, I'm not out to change anyone's mind.

I just wanted to see if there was at least one AGW disciple who would be willing to acknowledge that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect.

Mission accomplished.

JC Denton wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:



Oh, Ash-Leigh.  Don't tell me you're one of those silly AGW disciples who think there's absolutely no chance that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect.  That's not very scientific of you.

Tsk tsk