citizen1 (David Reynolds)

Follow

Comment history

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken right back attach-a...I have asked you to disprove my articles.

As I said before,The IPCC & the AGW Industry has a conundrum, admit the truth that they are "guessing", and risk being ignored, or "use falsified data or just leave data out" then "shade" the model results to gain an audience.

Prove that statement wrong Ken, I will say no more until then. Hades may freeze over, but I will not hold my breath while waiting. :)

June 18, 2015 at 10:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

One final thought regarding the whole AGW promotion. We all know that the AGW Agenda is Wealth Redistribution & Control. It comes in the form of Carbon Tax Credits, or rebates to the poor who will not be able to pay for the high cost of energy under the various proposed rules, or some other wealth redistribution scheme.

I was reminded of the following a while ago & I thought of the horrible impact the above policies will have on the USA & other Developed countries. Many of you have heard this before & possibly chuckled or ignored it as trivia. Please do not do this any more.

In the light of the AGW Agenda to put in place a huge wealth redistribution system please ruminate on the following.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

We are currently $18.5 trillion in debt, we have spent $22 trillion on social programs since starting "The Great Society" (excluding Medicare & Soc. Sec.). How much more debt will the proposed AGW rules & wealth redistribution system cost?

The AGW proponents talk about the "Tipping Point" of the Biosphere. What about the "Tipping Point" of our Republic?

June 18, 2015 at 3:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Barb, you are doing the exact same thing Ken is doing.

You think you can try to kill the messenger by trying to demean them. Sorry that doesn't work here. It only tells me that you are afraid of what they have to say; afraid that the information they provide will damage the man made global warming charges. Thus I respect them even more for their courage to defend themselves.

You and others must believe that "only the global warming proponents" have "the absolute right to correct data/information". As a matter of fact I believe those providing information that countermands the IPCC & others promoting man made global warming, have to be accurate to withstand the hurricane of charges the proponents will try to throw at them. For a fact we know from published reports & information I have provided over the last two weeks (none of which has been refuted with scientific facts) that the IPCC & their proponents have used false data to make their case & proposed recommendations.

This must be why you and others only attack the messenger & not the information they provide.

A glaring omission on your part is you did not mention the report from NASA. Is the reason you can't, because even you recognize it is a credible source? To repeat it states: "In the conclusion section NASA makes two key points: "1) The IPCC dismisses the radiosonde data as the decline is inconsistent with theory. 2) Changes in water vapor are linked to temperature trends in the upper atmosphere. Both satellite data and radiosonde data confirm the absence of any tropical upper atmosphere temperature amplification, contrary to IPCC theory. Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming."

Barb this is tiring. I have provided much evidence, that at minimum shows "Reasonable Doubt" that man made global warming exists, none of which has been refuted scientifically. The evidence has pointed to natural variability.

I also believe you, Ken & others, who are proponents of man made global warming, can not admit reasonable doubt in the face of the evidence, because: The IPCC & the AGW Industry has a conundrum, admit the truth that they are "guessing", and risk being ignored, or "use falsified data or just leave data out" then "shade" the model results to gain an audience.

This is the problem with the AGW theory has...it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, & nobody has irrefutably scientifically countered the scrutiny.

The evidence points to natural variability.

There is an old saying about knowledge that I believe is appropriate here: "The acquisition of uncommon knowledge inhibits the ability to apply common sense. Our Biosphere, having no uncommon knowledge, is smarter than the AGW proponents trying to tell it what it is supposed to do."

All the Best Barb

June 18, 2015 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken your comments offer no scientific proof, you are only offering personal opinion.

The following are two more articles showing the IPCC Report & those supporting man made global climate change have some work to do.

First with your argument that it can take 100's of years for the impacts of CO2 & "the dynamics of heat build up" to show warming. The following web site offers 600 million years. One would hope that time horizon will be adequate.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Glo...
Please refer to the graph showing 600 million years of data.

The conclusion is worded as follows: "According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."

Further evidence that the IPCC is getting the "Whole Story Wrong" comes from NASA in the article titled: "NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor". You can find the article at the following web site.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/

In the conclusion section NASA makes two key points: "1) The IPCC dismisses the radiosonde data as the decline is inconsistent with theory. 2) Changes in water vapor are linked to temperature trends in the upper atmosphere. Both satellite data and radiosonde data confirm the absence of any tropical upper atmosphere temperature amplification, contrary to IPCC theory. Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming."

Ken, I continue to offer facts to support my position. What do I get from you? No facts to support anything you say.

Ken, Irrefutable scientific proof would be real helpful. No more words that mean nothing. This is a data argument based on science, not a talk-a-thon.

I must conclude you have no science to prove your position on man made global climate change. You only have a supposition supporting your beliefs & position.

June 18, 2015 at 11:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken, Ken, Ken...words, words, words, words, words...All I hear are words. Words demeaning folks who offer a factual presentation of the IPCC forecasts, ; words occupying space & adding nothing to the points presented.

I hear nothing factually (data & supporting evidence, not emotional diatribes stating "we tried real hard") refuting the evidence, that I have offered in multiple posts throughout these several weeks.

If you don't like what the sources I have provided say, then please refute them factually. Don't offer sophomoric explanations that say nothing. Don't try to kill the messenger with immature demeaning remarks, deal with the message not the messenger. This later point is part of the reason the global climate change message goes no where. You do not bring people on board to your cause as followers of the religion by alienating them.

Throughout this long series of posts I have tried to offer evidence that, at a minimum, places the forecasts of the IPCC in reasonable doubt.

Can you please offer facts/data, not emotional diatribes, that PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that what I have said previously is factually wrong, and that your evidence irrefutably proves climate change is anthropogenic, to the exclusion of natural climate variation.

I offered the article about the ship trapped in ice for two reasons..primarily to inject some humor, & secondly to show the lengths some promoting anthropogenic global climate change will go.

Still waiting in Lawrence.

June 17, 2015 at 1:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken, that was a lot of words so I assume you said "Maybe". :)

I am sure the IPCC does a lot of testing, backcasting, but it is all for naught. The bottom line is they are not projecting the real world.

We are back to where we started with this discussion. I have included below some info on IPCC temperature & sea level forecasts that the IPCC had great certainty about.

I hope you enjoy, especially the last item. This is my last post as this discussion is now circular. The climate is changing, the reasons the IPCC says leaves a lot to be desired.

I have always said: If you want an alarmists prediction go to the mass media. If you want the failures of those predictions go to the “alternate” press.

The Climate Models VS Temperature Observed

The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.
https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong VS Observed Data
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10...
Dr. Spencer Background
http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

The Climate Models VS Sea Level Rise Observed

Tidal gauge data show no acceleration during strong warming between 1920-40 (a period when CO2 concentrations were lower)…with levels continuing to rise during slight cooling of 1940-75, and also during a recent 17-year warming “pause”. Yet IPCC-2013 shows increasing values (acceleration) throughout the entire period. It appears that this record may have been falsified. By Dr. Fred Singer (Retired Professor of Environmental Science, Univ. of VA., Early space research; first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service (1962–1964). The Climate Change proponents don’t like him, thus I do because I get to hear the other side)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell...

“Sea Levels Higher During Medieval Warming Period - Research Shows Current Sea Level Rise Began By 1750 AD. The data show that rising CO2 levels have zero impact on short-run or annual changes in the sea level. Sea Levels are highly variable.”
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/07/se...

This one is just for fun: “Global Warming Expedition to Prove Antarctic Ice is Melting Trapped by Ice”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgre...

Ken, All the best.

June 16, 2015 at 11:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken I do not have time to respond to you know. Will be back later today.

June 16, 2015 at 11:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken, Ken, Ken...You continue to avoid the question. For the last time, the RCP info is NOT RELEVANT to the central issue in question.

THE ISSUE IS: Do you admit the models need improving & thus the results are questionable?

ONLY Yes or No please, Thank you.

June 15, 2015 at 6:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken, you either miss or ignore the entire point of my previous & last post.

The issue is not which end of the pencil has the eraser (rcp 2.6 vs 8.5)!

The issue is the data, modeling & the results of the modeling. That is what the entire debate about global climate change is all about.

Until there is an admission/recognition that the models have significant issues, per all the reasons mentioned above there is nothing else for use or anyone on either side of the issue to talk about!

The data may be solved with openness & recognition of any further daming climate gate issues & that the bad data has been purged from the data sets.

The modeling is the critical issue. Unless there is an admission, by the climatologists & those supporting global climate change, that the models are not accurate & need significant improvement, this discussion is over. AR5 mentions the models need improving. Which also means the output results are not accurate.

So unless there is the above admission, then any climate change discussion will get nowhere.

I have admitted man needs to clean up there act.

Waiting in Lawrence.

June 15, 2015 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Continued from above.
The IPCC admits, the models are not accurate. In science for a theory & its mathematical model to be accepted as valid, it must meet several criteria: 1) It must be able to verify what we already know, 2) The experiment must be repeatable, i.e. it must be able to replicate what the theory says. about the past & future. None of this has occurred. The climate models can not match the past, & have not forecast the future. They totally missed the 17 year hiatus.

Climate theory is reliant on too many uncontrollable variables. We do not understand the interactions of the various variables & how they influence each other. This is why the RCP graphs are so wide ranging because they can not predict the climate.

So the RCP's are set up to identify various scenario's ranging from RCP 2.6 as status quo, to RCP 8.5 as all hades broke loose with volcanoes erupting, etc. The RCP's are heavily influenced by concentrations of CO2.

The IPCC is saying we can not "forecast" the future so lets guess at all possibilities. The graphs for each RCP has a very wide variance of uncertainty.

This is why the IPCC Report will only give a confidence rating to its predictions as "likely or very likely" for any given scenario.

The IPCC is dealing with "Irrational-Rationalization" and trying to pass their best "guesses" off as "likely or very likely".

The IPCC has a conundrum, admit the truth that they are "guessing", and risk being ignored, or "shade" the model results to gain an audience.

I'll let the truth I am seeking speak for itself.

All the best.

June 15, 2015 at 11:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )