Some1, it is not the true scientists on this site who are reaching into people's pockets and pushing to enact insane laws. That is totally your side and you are trying the old childish method of forcing the issue by making the opposition prove a negative. To those of your mentality, you think that you are clever, and pat yourselves on the back for stifling the advancement of knowledge.
As to your inane questions:
1. What evidence does anyone have that would show that The Laws of Physics do not apply to our emitting tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere?
Just who is saying that the Laws of Physics don't apply? I'm certainly not and I don't think Ottawa is.
2. What evidence does anyone have that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gas is a theory. I think you are confused between Physical Laws and theory. You should come back when you have a better understanding of the difference. But since you are obviously young and impressionable I, the Sage, will enlighten you. Now take notes, because this could be tricky for you. The GHG theory, simply put, says that the higher the concentration of GHG's, such as CO2, will result in higher temperatures globally. To even make it simpler, CO2 goes up, temperature follows suit and goes up. CO2 goes down, temperature follows suit and goes down. (Just like Al Gore showed to the world.) Now that we have that straight, let us say that if the temperature went up and CO2 stayed the same or went down, that would conclusively prove that the GHG theory is not valid. On the other hand if the CO2 level went up and the temperature went down or stayed the same then that also would prove the GHG theory is not valid. Isn't that reasonable and scientific? (I know your answer is YES.)
So now we have the situation where the earth has cooled for over a decade:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
And we have the indisputable fact that the CO2 level has risen during that same time. Therefore, it is scientifically conclusive that GHG is an invalid theory and all this money collecting and law enacting should cease.
Now that is true Science and realism. I have taken time out of my life to explain basic science to you, I hope you appreciate it.
3. What evidence does anyone have that anthropogenic global warming will not cause a warming to our climate 6C above pre-industrial times by the year 2100?
Again, that is childish and not in the realm of honest truth seeking. BUT, why did you stop at 6C? Why not 100C? Why not 1000C? They all have equal value in your scheme of logic. You might say, "Well 1000C is totally absurd." Is it? Then prove it.
In direct answer to your question:
Life magazine of January 3, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”
Also:
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
I guess someone has a lot to learn.
A new tactic, Ottawa Mike? Let us find for you dated articles for you to ridicule people with? Nice!
Here is the deal, Ottawa Mike. You can find all the articles on people making predictions concerning climate change that you want and it does not answer the real questions concerning the science itself.
1. What evidence does anyone have that would show that The Laws of Physics do not apply to our emitting tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere?
2. What evidence does anyone have that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
3. What evidence does anyone have that anthropogenic global warming will not cause a warming to our climate 6C above pre-industrial times by the year 2100?
Do you see what I did there with question #3, Ottawa Mike? I pulled the typical denier tactic on you. Show me proof that this is or is not going to happen! All the while deniers will cast to the side the degree of certainties within the probabilities.
You like to call yourself a skeptic based on some imagined unknowns to specific questions that cannot be fully answered until after the fact. Yet you deny all the evidence that contradicts your ideology. That is not how a true skeptic bases their skepticism, Ottawa Mike. Should you have some real reasons for your skepticism then lay them out for us to address. Just saying that you do not think that the warming will happen fast enough to be a concern for us is reason enough to be skeptical is not a true basis for skepticism.You have absolutely no scientific evidence to the contrary until after the fact, at best. But that is all you really pursue here, is it now. Delay now so that you do not have to contribute now. I am willing to listen to what you have to say, Ottawa Mike. Am I wrong about you concerning this? If so, please explain how I am wrong by telling us your true intentions here. Since you have already told us that you cannot think of anything that would prevent our adding tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere from warming our climate beyond the natural variations within the climate then what is the reason for skepticism beyond your ideological beliefs?
******
"You should re-read what your write before hitting ENTER"
I am a little bit slow. Could you be more specific, please?
I would suggest looking at the actual scientific paper for Predictions rather than assuming that the Newspaper reporters interpretation of the prediction is correct. Sometimes the reporters interpretation doesnt match the actual statements in the scientific work.
If you want to check out Hansons work from the early 80s. Here is a link to his CV.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhanse...
We are not quite 13 years into the century and you are making such a pronouncement already. We should wait for the remaining 86 years to hear what song the infamous fat lady sings.
I don't think so. Even Scenario A predicted just a 1.5C increase from 1960 to 2019.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988...
Some1Has
It looks like Ottawa Mike is in one of his Ottawa Maxx moods.
Caliserv
James Hansen said no such thing. He said that the coastal highway would be underwater when carbon dioxide doubled.
"When I interviewe--d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-W...
They don't keep those. It would be beyond embarrassing.
Hansen also predicted the coastal highway would be underwater by the year 2000. To the contrary; if there is any change in the sea level there, no one seems to be able to tell. Isn't it odd that nearly two decades of failed predictions has not even remotely dented the conviction of the warmists that 'there is no doubt?'
"If your prediction is wrong, then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." --Richard Feynman, PhD, Nobel laureate in physics
Science is based on verifiable, repeatable results. CAGW is not, nor has it ever been, science.
som1has2b Quit spouting about the laws of physics unless you are willing to elaborate, and if you are such an expert, explain about the warming effects of CO2 logarithmically diminishes with concentration, that's science, that not one scientist will deny, it means that at 400ppm, CO2 is saturated and there is very little long wave radiation left to soak up, meaning further increases can do very very little further warming.
Here is one I bookmarked:
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsfo...
here is another:
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/fifteen-foo...
Some media snippets:
http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.h...
The models:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/u...
Predicting the past:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/11/n...
Model over enthusiasm:
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20c...
Then the Arctic was to be ice free by 2013; 50 days to save the planet; Hansen's: A, B and C curves; Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035 ...
1970s; another ice age coming lol
Here is an interesting article (extracts) from 1986"
"Scientists and senators at a hearing by the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee agreed that the dangers of manmade changes in the atmosphere had moved from hypothesis to imminent reality and must be addressed quickly.
Dr. James E. Hansen of the Goddard Space Flight Center's Insitute for Space Studies said research by his institute showed that because of the "greenhouse effect" that results when gases prevent heat from escaping the earth's atmosphere, global temperatures would rise early in the next century to "well above any level experienced in the past 100,000 years."
Average global temperature would rise by one half to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Hansen's findings. Hansen said the global temperature would rise another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade." http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=m90eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=x2kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6732,129845
We can clearly see that Hansen was way off. My question is: does anybody know of a site of location which has a collection of similar articles (i.e. climate prediction with a date that allows verification)?
I'd like to restrict it to climate predictions if possible.
