bascule

You're ignoring that the scientific concensus is coupled with empirical evidence of their position and a complete lack of scientific arguments for the opposing viewpoint. It's a triple threat.

No, you merely seek to instill fear, uncertainty, and distrust of climate science in general. The Hansen paper empirically measured the Earth's radiative imbalance using satellite data and calculated the relative strength of various forcings which impact the climate system. What argument do you have against that? All SkepticLance has been able to trot out to question it is Michaels paper which mistakenly used degrees instead of radians in addition to numerous other errors in his calculations. Again, I challenge you to find one recent, peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal which makes the argument that natural forcings are predominant over anthropogenic ones. I keep asking for one of you to produce this. All SkepticLance has to say on this matter is that he doesn't have to, and he'll just continue doubting the scientific validity of the claim even though there are no scientific arguments for the opposing position. Creationism ignores the science and the scientific concensus. That's exactly what you're doing.

We are in the midst of a natural warming trend. Natural forcings dominated during the first half of the 20th century. However, anthorpogenic forcings, primarily CO2 are now predominant in driving global warming trends.

I ripped my shirt. IT'S A MIRACLE! I spilled my beer. IT'S A MIRACLE! My cat puked under my bed. IT'S A MIRACLE!

Heh, remember when Steven Segal went on Arsenio and claimed that the government created AIDS to attack the gay/black population? (I guess it's his brother's pet theory)

I guess you don't understand how the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System works then...

Beans and nuts are a good source of protein. A lot of vegan substitute-type foods will use tofu as a base, which is rich in protein.

It's my birthday too. w00t!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/korea.missile/index.html?section=cnn_topstories North Korea attempted to test fire a new version of their Taep'o Dong-2 ICBM earlier today. It failed less than a minute into the flight. Is this just sabre rattling, or should it be construed as an act of aggression? Is the US foreign policy towards North Korea effective, or is it putting us all in harm's way?

I love people who make ridiculous arguments about certain phenomena being in some way miraculous, then stick "quantum" on their argument in a vain attempt to make it pseudoscientific rather than purely supernatural/metaphysical crap

ROTFL

The hockey stick reconstruction graph shows output from 12 different models which matches empirical data: FUD FUD FUD It's really getting old

Anyone agree with my viewpoint: 1. Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer 2. The primary carcinogens in cigarettes responsible for lung cancer (i.e. polonium-210, lead-210, nitrosamine) are all results of the industrial production of tobacco, chemical fertilizers, and flue curing, and are therefore preventable via regulation 3. The government is not regulating any of these chemicals 4. Before the government begins banning smoking from public areas, it should ensure that smokers are receiving the safest product possible 5. Non-smokers don't give a shit about the health of smokers. They would rather ban smoking from public areas than enlist the government's aid in ensuring the smokers receive the safest product possible, which would potentially mitigate smoking-derived lung cancers Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking Note: I am now a non-smoker (i.e. ex-smoker) but retain concern for the health of smokers, especially since I have a number of friends who smoke. I've also written my senators with these concerns. Haven't received a reply yet, and sadly, I expect a form letter.

I spent the last 5 years helping climate scientists develop, use, and debug a mesoscale atmospheric model, the Regional Atmospheric Modelling System, which DrCloud helped develop. And indeed, the process you describe is exactly how models are developed. Empirically derived model inputs are used to produce model output which can also be compared to empirically derived observations. Failures of the model to replicate the empirically derived observations in the model output are progressively solved through tuning the existing model and adding additional modules which simulate components of the atmospheric/climate system which aren't accounted for in the present model. For example, I helped some of the scientists in my research group couple the General Energy and Momentum Transfer plant model with RAMS. I helped another scientist add NASA's Earth Systems Modelling Framework to a GCM. So if you're wondering why I take your outright dismissal of the scientific applicability of atmospheric and climate models, it's because it's personal...

This looks quite a bit like how Michaels presents Hansen. Hansen makes a number of possible predictions based on possible trends, then Michaels presents only one, out of context, and uses it in an attempt to discredit Hansen: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/pat_michaels_fraud_pure_and_si.php Essentially, it's a strawman

I'll be the first to admit that I don't adhere completely to belief in scientific knowledge. How can you? Like what? Again, no one is claiming memetics is a science. Utilitarianism isn't a science. Does that render it invalid?

What about Barbara Blackburn?

If there really is such a lack of data. Claiming a lack of data when there is not is the approach creationists take in an attempt to "discredit" evolution. You can make the claim. That doesn't make it the case. Psst, warming has continued past 1998. 2005 was the hottest year on record. Okay, so you're going over what we both already know for the third time... Your assertion "we don't have enough data" is not a reasonable position in view of the facts.

When you type, you're still spelling the word out... but you're still missing how this operates. You don't "say" the word in your brain, it uses the same sort of mechanical actuation as typing does. The difference is that you aren't limited by the speed at which your fingers can move. Look at how much that impacts the speed of Dvorak vs. Qwerty typing.

Seems like all the scientists here take me seriously' date=' and aren't taking you and Dr. Dalek seriously, with your rather distorted views of what science is. Lies and FUD are not "good science" either. Books and articles are not peer-reviewed scientific papers published in a major journal. So, in other words, you have no scientifically credible source for your assertions. They are unscientific. Can we please keep this to actual science? What error, what data, and what argument? Yes, there's a "debate" going on in biology now too: evolution vs. intelligent design. The difference is the advocates of intelligent design have no science on their side. I've asked you quite a few times now: find me a paper which corroborates the assertion that natural forcings predominate over anthropogenic ones. You have failed to do this. You have failed to find any peer-reviewed papers which corrobrate your assertions. You keep falling back on a book. Anyone can publish a book. Books don't have to undergo the peer review process, which is essential for good science. This is the same claim those advocating intelligent design make in order to bolster their claims, namely that because the "debate" exists in the first place there is some legitimacy to the other side. This clearly isn't the case. Intelligent design is unscientific. Please, no red herrings. The issue at hand is still whether or not anthropogenic forcings are predominantly responsible for global warming. The issue is not climate vulnerabilities. The issue is not Kyoto. Do you still believe that the assertion that anthropogenic forcings are primarily responsible for global warming is unscientific? If so, please find scientifically legitimate criticisms of the IPCC report, the NRC report, and the Hansen paper. I've already provided information showing Michaels challenges to the IPCC report are based on faulty calculations which used degrees instead of radians, in addition to other problems. You have no science on your side.

Hmm, here's an intersting tibit on Michaels' challenges to the IPCC and the need for peer review: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109 It strikes us as odd, to say the least, that, after one of the "most rigorous peer reviews ever", nobody involved (neither editor, nor reviewers, nor authors) seems to have caught the egregious basic error that the authors mistakenly used degrees rather than the required radians in calculating the cosine functions used to spatially weight their estimates**. This mistake rendered every calculation in the paper incorrect, and the conclusions invalid -- to our knowledge, however, the paper has not yet been retracted. Remarkably, there were still other independent and equally fundamental errors in the paper that would have rendered it entirely invalid anyway.

Whose model? Where's their paper? And how does this falsify the large amount of empirical data collected which demonstrates that anthropogenic climate forcings, particularly those of CO2, predominate in causing global warming? How does this discredit the Hansen paper and the satellite data it's based on? You're just spouting nonsense. Either back up your claims with links to scientific papers or shut up already. You're simply bilging blatant untruths. Again, this is empirical data, collected from satellites. The kind of stuff you kept whining and bitching for before. Now that you have it, you scream doubt? You've been shown to be wrong, and rather than simply admit it, you try to lie your way out of the corner you're stuck in. It's clear you're not concerned about the science whatseover. It seems more like you have a personal vendetta and seek to spread fear/uncertainty/doubt about climate science.

Strawman. Nobody here is arguing about climate vulnerabilities. All I've been trying to argue is that anthropogenic forcings are predominant, and neither you nor SkepticLance is yet to admit that.

You should read the Martell paper I linked earlier in the thread. Cigarette smoke is radioactive.

Climate vulnerabilities are another matter entirely. All I'm trying to get you to do is to admit that anthropogenic forcings are predominant in driving global warming trends. I find your spreading of lies and distortions offensive and ask you to stop. There most certainly are! Beyond Michael Behe, here's a nice list compiled by Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ Okay SkepticLance, I'll take everything I've said back if you can find me a recent, peer-reviewed paper published in a major scientific journal which contends that natural climate forcings predominate anthropogenic forcings in driving global warming trends. I've already provided you with several which corroborate my assertion.