Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:03:51 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
How can
one have confidence in AGW when warm temperatures are claimed to support AGW
and cooler temperatures are also claimed to support AGW? That kind of
baloney makes the theory unfalsifiable. IOW, unscientific.

While you are correctly referring to a valid scientific principle, you should
know better, then, to apply it in this way. Cooler temperatures, by themselves,
don't support AGW. Cooler temperatures that can be traced back to the Gulf
Stream weakening - due to *warmer* temperatures in the far North, causing water
from glaciers to make the Atlantic Ocean less salty, on the other hand, *could*
well be confirming evidence of AGW.

Deliberately omitting important facts when making an argument is an indication
of dishonesty, and oil companies have a sufficiently large financial interest
involved here that it would not be surprising if attempts were being made by
them to introduce misleading arguments into the climate debate.

I'm being charitable in assuming you may just be parroting dishonest arguments
someone else made up, but you appear to be determined to refute that hypothesis.

John Savard

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 2:37:55 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:55:34 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

There are many points about AGW that are
questionable to anyone with an open mind.

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true.

Hi John,

I think it is. I mentioned previously about cloud cover and cosmic rays.
That was certainly not in the climate models and we don't understand to
what extent that process affects GW (note: that would NOT be AGW). We're
going into a "quiet sun" period that may last decades and the solar wind
has allowed cosmic rays to increase by 15% over the past few years.

Another problem with the models is that they don't directly account for
the biggest greenhouse gas: water vapor. A multiplying factor is applied
to the CO2 content to account for water vapor indirectly, but such a
strategy reduces the accuracy of the model.

Third, the warming effect of CO2 concentration is not linear; i.e., it tends
to saturate. I don't know the details of this but it's my understanding
that the multiplier for CO2 used to be about six but it is presently around
two. Could it be that this reduction is because of a saturation factor?
How can one have any confidence in a model that has that kind of uncertainty
in it?

Using critical thinking before accepting a new idea is indeed a good thing.

But most people accept that the world is round and not flat, at bottom,
not because they've understood the science and figured it out for
themselves, but because they trust the official scientists who get to
write the textbooks more than Joe random guy who made a YouTube video.

I'm not "most people." I didn't accept the conclusions of special relativity
until I studied the assumptions and derived the equations myself. Actually,
I start out accepting what scientists say, then have second thoughts, then
dig through it myself and end up agreeing or disagreeing. You are talking
about the FIRST step, which is where "most people" are, and which step they
never graduate from.

Some people have brought forth superficially convincing arguments
that the Earth is flat, even though it isn't. The same can be done with
global warming - and here there's money involved.

Not the same thing at all. Flatness is a property of geometry, and geometry
is very simple. GW is not simple at all, let alone AGW. Comparing AGW
skepticism to an inability to do geometry is extremely offensive and serves
only to cause polarization. People who behave like Peterson are doing no
favor to the AGW believers.

Environmentalists certainly do deserve to be looked at with skepticism.
They've cried wolf before, and many of them don't seem to have come to grips
with what it takes to feed the world's existing population, or what it took
to keep from losing the Cold War.

Indeed.

But you don't seem to have noticed that the world's scientists, who look
at new theories skeptically for a living, and who are the experts on
this kind of stuff, have now accepted AGW as part of what science knows
about the world around us. Like the round Earth, like evolution by natural
selection, like the Special and General theories of Relativity.

Any science where one can't perform experiments should be viewed with a
healthy dose of skepticism. Relativity has been thoroughly tested in a
local framework, but cosmological models based on GR makes assumptions
which may not be correct.

And that fact means that one should direct a withering skepticism towards
Fox News rather than towards the scientific community.

John Savard

Sorry, John, but I believe the jury is still out. And "withering" responses
when one expresses some skepticism smacks of totalitarian tactics. How can
one have confidence in AGW when warm temperatures are claimed to support AGW
and cooler temperatures are also claimed to support AGW? That kind of
baloney makes the theory unfalsifiable. IOW, unscientific.

Gary


Gary
Are you aware of this?
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-denial

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 07:24:32 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
There is no difference between denying AGW and being a flat-earther

Does that imply that all scientists before Svante Arrhenius were
flat-earthers? grin Svante Arrhenius was the first to warn for the
risks with human produced CO2, more than 100 years ago.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
This is complete bull plop. There are many points about AGW that
are
questionable to anyone with an open mind.

Such as?

On Saturday, 21 April 2018 12:04:47 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:24:34 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:32:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

AGW denier, yes, but not even a young-earth Creationist, never mind a
flat-earther.

There is no difference between denying AGW and being a flat-earther
(or a young Earth creationist, or an anti-vaxxer). The mentality is
identical.

This is complete bull plop. There are many points about AGW that are
questionable to anyone with an open mind.

Yeah. Like the kind of feedback clouds provide. Not the fact that the
Earth is warming dramatically and the cause is the human release of
fossil carbon into the atmosphere. That isn't questioned at all,
except by flat-earthers like yourself.

Stop trying to link questioning of bad global warming science with flat earth, Ufologists, etc.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 09:56:15 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
Yeah. Like the kind of feedback clouds provide. Not the fact that
the
Earth is warming dramatically and the cause is the human release
of
fossil carbon into the atmosphere.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply
causation.

However, in the case of AGW, a very plausible mechanism of causation
is known. Do you have another, more plausible, reason for the
correlation? If so, present it. If your argument is solid, you'll
definitely get a Nobel Prize for that.

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:33:50 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 06:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

what extent that process affects GW (note: that would NOT be AGW).

In today's world, GW is almost entirely AGW. That is a fact.

That's an unsubstantiated assertion since the effects of increased cloud
cover due to cosmic ray nucleation have not been quantified.

It is known to be true beyond reasonable doubt, and is accepted by 99%
of climate scientists. A greater consensus than we have for nearly any
other area of scientific knowledge.

Do you mean consensus of those who haven't included the effects of cosmic
ray cloud nucleation in their climate models and who have reduced the
multiplication factor of CO2 effects in their models, to account for the
greatest greenhouse gas of them all, from 6 to 2? If 6 is wrong, what
confidence is there that 2 is the right number?

Flat-earther.

Repeated slurs only weaken your already weak responses. You should give
it a rest.

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:00:51 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:03:51 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

How can one have confidence in AGW when warm temperatures are claimed
to support AGW and cooler temperatures are also claimed to support AGW?
That kind of baloney makes the theory unfalsifiable. IOW, unscientific.

While you are correctly referring to a valid scientific principle, you
should know better, then, to apply it in this way. Cooler temperatures,
by themselves, don't support AGW. Cooler temperatures that can be traced
back to the Gulf Stream weakening - due to *warmer* temperatures in the
far North, causing water from glaciers to make the Atlantic Ocean less
salty, on the other hand, *could* well be confirming evidence of AGW.

The operative word is "could." That's not a quantitative relationship.

Deliberately omitting important facts when making an argument is an
indication of dishonesty,

But "could" doesn't represent FACT.

and oil companies have a sufficiently large financial interest involved
here that it would not be surprising if attempts were being made by
them to introduce misleading arguments into the climate debate.

I think that's a canard. The big oil companies have embraced efforts to
reduce emissions and are doing research into green processes.

I'm being charitable in assuming you may just be parroting dishonest
arguments someone else made up, but you appear to be determined to
refute that hypothesis.

John Savard

I'm a concerned watcher. That means I believe in taking measured steps
to reduce CO2 not only because of possible AGW effects but also because
of other possible effects increased CO2 may have which are presently
unknown, but I am vehemently against Chicken Little propagandists who
demand immediate action regardless of the cost and denigrate those who
hold more measured views.

Gary

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 12:41:28 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

Sorry, John, but I believe the jury is still out. And "withering" responses
when one expresses some skepticism smacks of totalitarian tactics. How can
one have confidence in AGW when warm temperatures are claimed to support AGW
and cooler temperatures are also claimed to support AGW? That kind of
baloney makes the theory unfalsifiable. IOW, unscientific.

Gary


Gary
Are you aware of this?
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-denial

It seems to me that oil companies have just trying to get ahead of the PR
game. It's what companies do, which makes it such a lame argument that
they are trying to stifle AGW advocacy.

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 1:16:31 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 09:56:15 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Yeah. Like the kind of feedback clouds provide. Not the fact that
the Earth is warming dramatically and the cause is the human release
of fossil carbon into the atmosphere.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply
causation.

However, in the case of AGW, a very plausible mechanism of causation
is known. Do you have another, more plausible, reason for the
correlation? If so, present it. If your argument is solid, you'll
definitely get a Nobel Prize for that.

I don't think there is any question that global temperatures have risen:

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...tures/70004226

But I have a bit of concern for honesty here. They say, "The last four
years rank among the five warmest Januarys on record."

That's true ... as far as it goes, but the chart shows the last two years
in a downward trend, taking off a third of the temperature increases over
the last 138 years!

Weather is VERY complex, and modeling is VERY difficult, particularly when
certain factors are handled only indirectly (and, therefore, only approxi-
mately) and other factors haven't been included.