[Pants-of-dog]

Well, he has also been shown to be weong about his whole satellite data cherry picking thing.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/3 ... 8.abstract
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. ... -0442(2003)016%3C3650%3AAROTMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/r ... lw0602.pdf

So, you are citing a Creationist and someone who has been shown to be wrong.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Well, I don't know about all y'all folks, but this here global warming thing sounds like a big ol' bucket of hogwash to me. Today I was out in my fields picking cherries and I done come across the idea of looking up the truth about global warming. The truth, I found, was lo and behold, quite unsurprising indeed.

God’s global warming worked just fine
Evidence from the pre-Flood world suggests that we need not fear global warming from carbon dioxide
Governments today are trying to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the air, because they fear that the greenhouse effect (which traps heat trying to leave the earth) of CO2 will trigger a global climate catastrophe. They point to computer simulations suggesting that result. But the evidence suggests that about 6,000 years ago God created the world with large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This lasted 1,656 years, from Creation until the Genesis Flood. The rocks and fossils laid down by that flood suggest that the result was very beneficial, with no climate catastrophe, as we shall see.

I went back to cherry-picking in my fields after finding that source which backed up my preconceptions.

[Besoeker]

Well, I don't know about all y'all folks, but this here global warming thing sounds like a big ol' bucket of hogwash to me. Today I was out in my fields picking cherries and I done come across the idea of looking up the truth about global warming. The truth, I found, was lo and behold, quite unsurprising indeed.

God’s global warming worked just fine
Evidence from the pre-Flood world suggests that we need not fear global warming from carbon dioxide
Governments today are trying to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the air, because they fear that the greenhouse effect (which traps heat trying to leave the earth) of CO2 will trigger a global climate catastrophe. They point to computer simulations suggesting that result. But the evidence suggests that about 6,000 years ago God created the world with large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This lasted 1,656 years, from Creation until the Genesis Flood. The rocks and fossils laid down by that flood suggest that the result was very beneficial, with no climate catastrophe, as we shall see.

I went back to cherry-picking in my fields after finding that source which backed up my preconceptions.

You might wish to have a look at who Russ Humphreys is an what he represents.

[Truth To Power]

Well, he has also been shown to be weong about his whole satellite data cherry picking thing.

How could that be relevant to the actual UAH satellite data correctly shown in the graph I cited? I did not cite any statement by Roy Spencer, so why are you falsely and repeatedly claiming I cited him as a source?

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1548.abstract
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. ... -0442(2003)016%3C3650%3AAROTMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/r ... lw0602.pdf

So, you are citing a Creationist and someone who has been shown to be wrong.

No, that statement was a lie. I cited the UAH satellite data, not any statement by Roy Spencer. I even gave you a link to the exact same data, presented in a slightly less clear form, on the UAH site. You have simply ignored that citation, and pretended I did not provide it. Why are you pretending that I cited Roy Spencer when I did not, and why are you pretending I did not cite the UAH site when I did?

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not discussing your claim. This should have been clear from the fact that I never mentioned it. Reading comprehension....

Anyway, when one of the most respected scientists in the denialist camp is (a) wrong and, (b) a Creationist, then perhaps the denialist side is wrong.

[Truth To Power]

I am not discussing your claim.

So your entire concern is to make an ad hominem "argument."

That fits.

This should have been clear from the fact that I never mentioned it. Reading comprehension....

No, just a naïve assumption that you were trying to make a contribution to the discussion. I am aware that naively assuming honest intentions on the other side is a chronic error of mine.

Anyway, when one of the most respected scientists in the denialist camp is (a) wrong and, (b) a Creationist, then perhaps the denialist side is wrong.

So you are not interested in the data, and have nothing whatever to offer but an ad hominem. Check.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure. Whatever.

I don't think Roy Spencer is wrong because he is a supporter of anti-scientific ideas. I think he is a supporter of anti-scientific ideas because he is wrong.

[Renato]

In which way could man-made global warming be falsitiable?

[Truth To Power]

In which way could man-made global warming be falsitiable?

Not by data, that's for sure.

[Saeko]

In which way could man-made global warming be falsitiable?

Easy. Just show that CO2 and H2O don't trap infrared radiation or that human activity has not resulted in an increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Pants-of-dog]

Or you can show that the warming we have expereinced since 1850 is due solely to natural forcings.

[oscar]

Nobel prizes-galore for the scientist(s) who provide credible evidence that CO2 is not contributing to global warming and that natural forcing functions are causing the CO2 rise.

[Truth To Power]

In which way could man-made global warming be falsitiable?

Easy. Just show that CO2 and H2O don't trap infrared radiation or that human activity has not resulted in an increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You say, "Easy," and then describe something plainly impossible. Which was kinda his point.

Your response exemplifies a sneaky, disingenuous propaganda trick common among AGW screamers: pretending that what is known, uncontroversial, and no cause for alarm in climate science is equivalent to unscientific alarmist claims that are not known, very controversial, and quite implausible.

Or you can show that the warming we have expereinced since 1850 is due solely to natural forcings.

Another example of the same disingenuous propaganda trick.

Nobel prizes-galore for the scientist(s) who provide credible evidence that CO2 is not contributing to global warming and that natural forcing functions are causing the CO2 rise.

A Trifecta!

[mikema63]

So you agree that CO2 retains heat, and that we are increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, but then claim that CO2 we pump into the atmosphere is somehow magically not doing that because reasons which you don't feel the need to explain because you claim to have taken some tests once and gotten high score.

[Saeko]

You say, "Easy," and then describe something plainly impossible. Which was kinda his point.

Your response exemplifies a sneaky, disingenuous propaganda trick common among AGW screamers: pretending that what is known, uncontroversial, and no cause for alarm in climate science is equivalent to unscientific alarmist claims that are not known, very controversial, and quite implausible.

It is only impossible because the AGW-hypothesis is actually true.

Since the two components of it above are contingent statements, they could be false, and the failure of either would disprove the AGW hypothesis.

[Renato]

Easy. Just show that CO2 and H2O don't trap infrared radiation or that human activity has not resulted in an increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

First part is impossible as it is a well documented scientific fact. The second one is more debatable. Increase of CO2 due to human activity is negligible compared to that which ocurs naturally due to volcanic activity for example. Also the greenhouse effect, whether natural or man-made, is not the only phenomenon that has an impact on climate. Other natural phenomenons may weight it out.

[mikema63]

You acknowledge that CO2 traps heat and that we produce it in the atmosphere.

So in principle you do not dispute the possibility and only dispute the degree of effect.

As for volcanoes, maximum yearly co2 output is estimated at about 300 million tons, co2 from fossil fuel use a year is about 30 billion tons or 100x more.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcan ... ediate.htm

[Truth To Power]

So you agree that CO2 retains heat, and that we are increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere,

Right.

but then claim that CO2 we pump into the atmosphere is somehow magically not doing that

Wrong.

because reasons which you don't feel the need to explain because you claim to have taken some tests once and gotten high score.

Why even bother spewing such puerile nonsense?

You say, "Easy," and then describe something plainly impossible. Which was kinda his point.

Your response exemplifies a sneaky, disingenuous propaganda trick common among AGW screamers: pretending that what is known, uncontroversial, and no cause for alarm in climate science is equivalent to unscientific alarmist claims that are not known, very controversial, and quite implausible.

It is only impossible because the AGW-hypothesis is actually true.

Only if by, "the AGW hypothesis" you mean, "CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans have increased its concentration."

Which AGW screamers clearly don't.

Since the two components of it above are contingent statements, they could be false,

Wrong.

and the failure of either would disprove the AGW hypothesis.

Please state clearly what you mean by "the AGW hypothesis."

Increase of CO2 due to human activity is negligible compared to that which ocurs naturally due to volcanic activity for example.

No, Mike is correct about this. There is no doubt that human fossil fuel use is the dominant cause of increased atmospheric CO2 since the 19th C.

Also the greenhouse effect, whether natural or man-made, is not the only phenomenon that has an impact on climate. Other natural phenomenons may weight it out.

Right.

[mikema63]

I don't know, why do you post so much?

[Saeko]

First part is impossible as it is a well documented scientific fact. The second one is more debatable. Increase of CO2 due to human activity is negligible compared to that which ocurs naturally due to volcanic activity for example. Also the greenhouse effect, whether natural or man-made, is not the only phenomenon that has an impact on climate. Other natural phenomenons may weight it out.

Human activity is by far the biggest source of net increases CO2 in the atmosphere.

Unless there are substances on Earth which absorb negative heat, it is difficult to imagine what sort of natural phenomena could balance out the heating due to AGW.

Wrong.

If you can't back your position with arguments, don't bother. I am perfectly capable of pulling opinions from my ass by myself.