Little Greta comes clean

[Sparko]

Fair enough. I apologize for being harsher than necessary.

The joke you are making implies that the warming predictions have been wildly out of bounds - yet they have not been. That joke then can only be a joke to a person that doesn't understand what the actual facts are. Who thinks the predictions are so bad that such a comment captures some ironic element of reality.

Given the atmosphere of ignorance concerning AGW routinely displayed and promoted here, it just isn't funny, at least not to me.

I was merely using hyperbole to mock the climate alarmists like Al Gore who have been telling us our coastlines should be underwater by now.

Lighten up.

[Sparko]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41481[/ATTACH]

How do they know what the sunspot and temperature readings were 5-10,000 years ago?

[Mountain Man]

I was merely using hyperbole to mock the climate alarmists like Al Gore who have been telling us our coastlines should be underwater by now.

Lighten up.

Then there's Obama who recently bought a multi-million dollar mansion right on the coast. I guess he believed his own hype that his mere presence could stop the seas from rising.

[oxmixmudd]

How do they know what the sunspot and temperature readings were 5-10,000 years ago?

There are proxies that are directly correlated to solar sunspot activity, specifically the production of c14 and be10. By measuring concentrations of these in items of known age, sunspot activity can be derived. Dead trees would be one source, another would be ice cores. There are other proxies that correlate well to temperature.

[oxmixmudd]

Then there's Obama who recently bought a multi-million dollar mansion right on the coast. I guess he believed his own hype that his mere presence could stop the seas from rising.

We touch on this before, so now I can with authority say you are purposefully distorting the data. That mansion is well placed not to be effected by any predicted outcome, of sea level rise even worst case, of global warming, geyondcthe threat of a hurricane, which exists regardless

[Mountain Man]

We touch on this before, so now I can with authority say you are purposefully distorting the data. That mansion is well placed not to be effected by any predicted outcome, of sea level rise even worst case, of global warming, geyondcthe threat of a hurricane, which exists regardless

With authority, huh?

[oxmixmudd]

I was merely using hyperbole to mock the climate alarmists like Al Gore who have been telling us our coastlines should be underwater by now.

Lighten up.

Can't really lighten up Sparko and you should know why.
But I can give people the benefit of the doubt and try to be gracious in my replies.

[oxmixmudd]

With authority, huh?

The fact is, you know the mansion the Obamas bought is not under any threat from predicted sea rise, yet you pontificate that they are hypocritical in their statements about global warming. This points to a willingness in you not only to distort the truth to make a point, but a willingness to unfairly disparage another person to make a point, which are very bad marks on you, not on Obama.

[lilpixieofterror]

Can't follow your point Pix.

It’s really pretty simple:

People, on both sides of the debate, use junk science and faulty reasoning to support their claims.

Can you at least admit that much?

[seer]

The fact is, you know the mansion the Obamas bought is not under any threat from predicted sea rise, yet you pontificate that they are hypocritical in their statements about global warming. This points to a willingness in you not only to distort the truth to make a point, but a willingness to unfairly disparage another person to make a point, which are very bad marks on you, not on Obama.

Do you know Martha's Vineyard Jim? It is off the coast of Massachusetts in the Atlantic ocean. Why on earth wouldn't it be under threat? You are not making sense.

[oxmixmudd]

It’s really pretty simple:

People, on both sides of the debate, use junk science and faulty reasoning to support their claims.

Can you at least admit that much?

I can admit there are ignorant people on both sides of the debate saying stupid things that are not supported by science.

I will not admit there is "Junk Science" on the AGW side of the debate, that is simply false.

The only ideas that need 'junk science' are those that are contrary to what science actually tells us. Science tells us the Earth is warming and GHG emissions by mankind are the primary driver since the mid 20th century. The 'junk science' is the stuff that doesn't acknowledge that as the logical conclusions from the data that are derived by legitimate science. At this time, scientists are NOT using 'junk science' to support their conclusions regarding AGW.

[oxmixmudd]

Do you know Martha's Vineyard Jim? It is off the coast of Massachusetts in the Atlantic ocean. Why on earth wouldn't it be under threat? You are not making sense.

Because the predicted sea rise is 1.5 to 4 feet by 2100. If the area and access roads to where the mansion is are 30 or 40 feet above sea level, why would it be threatened by even a 4 foot sea rise? And so why would Obama and his family be hypocritical to buy such a place? It should be fine and usable up to the end of Obama's grandchildrens lifetimes.

[lilpixieofterror]

I can admit there are ignorant people on both sides of the debate - yes. I will not admit there is "Junk Science" on the AGW side of the debate, that is simply false. The only ideas that need 'junk science' are those that are contrary to what science actually tells us. Science tells us the Earth is warming and GHG emissions by mankind are the primary driver since the mid 20th century. The 'junk science' is the stuff that doesn't acknowledge that as the logical conclusions from the data that are derived by legitimate science. Scientists are NOT using 'junk science' to support their conclusions.

So you deny that the AGW crowd has published books saying that starvation is going to increase by the 1970’s and 1980’s with starvation affecting the US and other first world nations if we don’t do something?

What caused such a wildly inaccurate prediction and other wildly inaccurate predictions, to not happen?

You’re making a category error here, it is possible that the earth can be getting warmer and for the people saying this to be using junk science to support such a conclusion. True claims can be just as much supported by wrong or bad science as bad claims can be supported by bad science. I mean, the geocentric model was able to predict where the planets appeared in the sky, even if it was totally wrong about how our solar system actually worked.

[seer]

Because the predicted sea rise is 1.5 to 4 feet by 2100. If the area and access roads to where the mansion is are 30 or 40 feet above sea level, why would it be threatened by even a 4 foot sea rise? And so why would Obama and his family be hypocritical to buy such a place? It should be fine and usable up to the end of Obama's grandchildrens lifetimes.

His home looks pretty even with the sea, and storm surges, as we experience more and more powerful storms as predicted, would just wipe it away.

obama-marthasvineyard-house.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

So you deny that the AGW crowd has published books saying that starvation is going to increase by the 1970’s and 1980’s with starvation affecting the US and other first world nations if we don’t do something?

Pixie, my statement was regarding the conclusions of science. There is no 'junk science' involved in concluding the Earth is warming and GHG produced by mankind are the driver. That is science. Who will go hungry and who will get a windfall as a consequence of that warming is speculation - at best. That is not climate science. I admitted that ignorant people exist on both sides. What I did not admit is that junk science drives the conclusion of AGW. It does not.

What caused such a wildly inaccurate prediction and other wildly inaccurate predictions, to not happen?

Speculation using incomplete variable sets is bound to have the potential to produce wildly inaccurate predictions. But speculation based on incomplete variable sets is not a scientific conclusion, it is speculation.

You’re making a category error here, it is possible that the earth can be getting warmer and for the people saying this to be using junk science to support such a conclusion.

I'm not talking about what is theoretically possible Pix. I am talking about what is.

I'm saying the AGW conclusion ISN'T using junk science to arrive at the conclusion. That is the point. AGW IS the scientific conclusion - the conclusion that is the result of applying the scientific method to analyse the known climate and related data against known physical principles.

True claims can be just as much supported by wrong or bad science as bad claims can be supported by bad science. I mean, the geocentric model was able to predict where the planets appeared in the sky, even if it was totally wrong about how our solar system actually worked.

That is true but irrelevant. AGW IS the conclusion that derives from the currently known climate and related physical data when analyzed using known physical principles and the scientific method.