[Truth To Power]

TTP sure writes a lot without saying much.

All readers are aware that that claim is false.

Anyway, here is a link to one of his posts ( viewtopic.php?f=6&t=163387&start=280#p14645310 ) where he claims that a particular study corroborates the claim that most of the temperature increase since 1800 is from natural forcings.

Which is correct.

This is the study he mentions:
"Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years" Solanki et al, Nature, 2004

Here is the text he usually quotes:
“According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.”

The abstract does contain those words, but here it is in full:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 02995.html

Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1, 2, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.

I have italicised TTP's quoted text.

Please note that the last sentence directly contradicts TTP's claim.

Please note that PoD's claim is (surprise!) factually incorrect. The last sentence in no way contradicts my claim. We have already been through this multiple times, and in each case, I proved PoD wrong, and he then ignored the fact that I had proved him wrong and repeated his proved-false claims, as he has now done once again.

[Pants-of-dog]

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=161855&start=20#p14661808

Prosthetic conscience does a good job here of dismantling the solar variation argument.

[Truth To Power]

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=161855&start=20#p14661808

Prosthetic conscience does a good job here of dismantling the solar variation argument.

You mean, by citing one "research" paper that consisted of altering historical data to fit the Indisputably Correct Theory...?

Read the whole thread, and watch as I pulverize PC's AGW nonscience.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yea, everyone should read it.

This way, everyone will know that the solar variation argument is bunk.

[Truth To Power]

Yea, everyone should read it.

Right.

This way, everyone will know that the solar variation argument is bunk.

No, they'll know that the attempt to debunk it was typically ridiculous and disingenuous AGW nonscience. You can't change the facts by just changing the data, sorry.

[Pants-of-dog]

TTP, as usual, has no evidence for his claims.

Please note that in the linked solar variation discussion, the pro-ACC debaters support their position with evidence while TTP does not.

[anasawad]

So let me get this straight.
We who think global warming is true not only because we have eyes and can see the world around us but because every major scientific research agency says its true and dangerous, have to open our eyes and look for facts.
On the other hand, global warming deniers, who's believe is based on that all the scientists, major scientific institutions, all the governments, all the universities in the world and even as it appears the world it self are liers and that global warming is a myth, have nothing to worry about because they're right and smart and everyone else is stupid.
Ofcourse we can tell the TTP has around 2 dozen scientific degrees along with a few 100 researches on this subject so he couldn't possibly be wrong.

[Truth To Power]

TTP, as usual, has no evidence for his claims.

PoD, as usual, incorrectly claims that relevant facts that support an opposing view are not evidence for that view unless they are presented in a format that conforms to his requirements. He is apparently permanently unable to understand that he does not get to define what constitutes evidence to suit himself.

Please note that in the linked solar variation discussion, the pro-ACC debaters support their position with evidence while TTP does not.

Please note that PoD's claim is, as usual, objectively false. PoD just incorrectly believes -- or at least pretends to -- that when someone provides a link and says it supports his claims, that link is evidence whether or not the linked information is relevant, supports the claims in question, or even contradicts them, while well known and clearly stated facts that offer indisputable logical support for the opposing view are not evidence unless presented in the format PoD incorrectly defines as "evidence": links.

Unfortunately, with PoD, even providing links is entirely fruitless. I have often provided links to evidence in these AGW discussions, and PoD simply ignores them and repeats his false claim that I don't provide links to evidence, safely hiding behind the forum rules, knowing it is not permitted to identify his claims for what they are.

In the linked solar variation discussion, for example, a lot of the evidence that my view is correct comes from the links the pro-AGW side itself provides, because their evidence is poor, illogical, unscientific, fraudulent, self-contradictory, fallacious, or otherwise epistemologically faulty. Pointing out the epistemological failures on the other side is evidence that the other side is wrong, no matter what PoD's false beliefs about what constitutes evidence. If the other side's links do not support their claims, an explanation of why they do not support them is evidence against those claims, with no further links required. PoD is permanently unable to understand that fact.

[Pants-of-dog]

Anyone can look at any debate between climate change deniers and supporters of ACC theory and see that the people who claim climate change is real are the ones that support their claims with links to actual evidence.

[Truth To Power]

So let me get this straight.

Reading no further, I know you will now try to get it wrong. Watch:

We who think global warming is true

See? That didn't take long. Global warming is a physical phenomenon, not a proposition, statement, hypothesis or conjecture, and therefore cannot be true or false.

not only because we have eyes and can see the world around us but because every major scientific research agency says its true

No, that claim is false. No scientific research agency has ever said global warming is true, because global warming is not a declarative sentence, and therefore cannot be true or false. AGW screamers always avoid stating specifically what factual propositions they subscribe to, and what are endorsed by scientific research agencies, because they are aware of the mismatch between those two sets of propositions.

and dangerous,

Compared to a new Ice Age....?

have to open our eyes and look for facts.

Oh, if only....

On the other hand, global warming deniers, who's believe is based on that all the scientists, major scientific institutions, all the governments, all the universities in the world and even as it appears the world it self are liers

That is an absurd strawman, of course.

and that global warming is a myth,

Global warming denotes a physical phenomenon, not a proposition, and therefore cannot be a myth.

have nothing to worry about because they're right and smart and everyone else is stupid.

AGW screamers are stupid, anyway.

Ofcourse we can tell the TTP has around 2 dozen scientific degrees along with a few 100 researches on this subject so he couldn't possibly be wrong.

I could be wrong. But so far, my predictions have turned out more accurate than those of AGW screamers. That tells me I am more likely to be right than they are.

Anyone can look at any debate between climate change deniers and supporters of ACC theory and see that the people who claim climate change is real are the ones that support their claims with links to actual evidence.

No, that's objectively incorrect. They do typically provide more links, believing, as PoD does, that a link per se constitutes evidence for whatever claim is being made, without regard for any logical relationships involved (or lack thereof); but those links typically do not actually constitute evidence for their claims because of various epistemological shortcomings.

[Pants-of-dog]

....which is why I always quote the relevant text and its context, and also bold the exact phrases that support the claim.

Which is why any reader can see that the linked evidence supports the claim.

[anasawad]

@Truth To Power
Playing on words and saying something is wrong over and over again while all the evidence shows otherwise wont really work when you're debating here on PoFo.
Those arguments and conspiracies where all the scientific research agencies are lying for some sinister purpose only works on dumb rednicks.

Its like arguing earth is flat just 1 level above it. It doesn't work.

[Truth To Power]

....which is why I always quote the relevant text and its context, and also bold the exact phrases that support the claim.

That you incorrectly claim support the claim, you mean. Like your objectively incorrect claim about the logical implications of the last sentence of the Solanki article's abstract, for example.

Which is why any reader can see that the linked evidence supports the claim.

It doesn't support the claim; but that is not apparent to just any reader, who is unlikely to be trained in scientific method or epistemology. That's where I come in, to explain why the purported evidence for the claim actually contradicts it. And then you respond that because the well known and uncontroversial facts identified in the course of that explanation do not require any link to any other information, they can't be "evidence."

Playing on words and saying something is wrong over and over again while all the evidence shows otherwise wont really work when you're debating here on PoFo.

True; I wonder why you persist in doing it.

Those arguments and conspiracies where all the scientific research agencies are lying for some sinister purpose only works on dumb rednicks.

Were you thinking at some point of actually responding to something I said?

Its like arguing earth is flat just 1 level above it. It doesn't work.

Total absence of factual and logical content noted.

[Pants-of-dog]

If we assume that Dr. Spencer is aware of this paper that shows his supposed discrepancies to be bias errors ( http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. ... 13-00767.1 ) , and if we assume that Spencer is still peddling the idea that there is a discrepancy between satellite and surface data, then he is misrepresenting the situation.

[Truth To Power]

If we assume that Dr. Spencer is aware of this paper that shows his supposed discrepancies to be bias errors ( http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. ... 13-00767.1 ) ,

It claims and argues that they are bias errors. It does not show they are bias errors.

and if we assume that Spencer is still peddling the idea that there is a discrepancy between satellite and surface data, then he is misrepresenting the situation.

No, PoD, it is YOU who are misrepresenting the situation. The fact of the discrepancy is well known and not controversial. The explanations for it are the subject of ongoing and lively debate, as any Google search of the topic will show.

[Atlantis]

We can close this thread now. With Trump we are toast anyways.

[Pants-of-dog]

It claims and argues that they are bias errors. It does not show they are bias errors.

I doubt it. You are probably lying or did not read it properly.

No, PoD, it is YOU who are misrepresenting the situation. The fact of the discrepancy is well known and not controversial. The explanations for it are the subject of ongoing and lively debate, as any Google search of the topic will show.

There is alo lively debate about how the CIA actually brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11, and that Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with it. Does that somehow lend merit to the conspiracy nuts?

[Truth To Power]

I doubt it. You are probably lying or did not read it properly.

Wrong.

There is alo lively debate about how the CIA actually brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11, and that Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with it. Does that somehow lend merit to the conspiracy nuts?

Did Oswald act alone...?

I don't know if it was the CIA, Mossad, or someone else, but IMO it is far from clear that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. At any rate, of all the conspiracy theories about 9/11, one of the less plausible is the Officially Approved 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. I do remember that the hijackers were identified within hours of the attacks, with no actual evidence of their identities having come to light other than a passport that miraculously fluttered intact to the pavement below.

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh, you are a conspiracy theorist. I see.

[anasawad]