cohenite,

I was just musing on commission cheques from warmers trying to sell a new car.

Here is the latest European model madam. It is equipped with a proton-driven gluon binder, it produces 6.5 Tera e/V of power, enough to run your car for 7 million years, it has twin snaffle ejectors and although the external dimensions measure only 700 Ltrs, this car actually holds a “predicted” cargo capacity of two football stadiums and it sells for just $8.50 including on road costs.

Really says the prospect, so does it really have a “proton-driven gluon binder”? Well yes says the salesperson. We have computer models produced by the manufacturer themselves and peer reviewed by the tea lady, that predict our predictions are very close to being predictions.

So what about those 7 million years of power? Ah, yes, I’m glad you asked about that.

The 7 million years is actually based on a non linear differential algorithm that predicts your life span of 90 years, this means that your children and grandchildren will benefit from your purchase of this fine vehicle for 6.99999 million years.

It seems too good to be true says the purchaser, but can I really purchase this for $8.50?

Absolutely, we calculate that your gross savings over 7 million years will result in a net saving on the real cost of, you know, something. This is calculated to be in the region a trillion dollars. If we discount the savings and deduct these from the amortized cost of something, we get to a net cost of $8.50.

I’m sorry says the customer, I’m a little skeptical.

Skeptical! says the salesperson, you filthy denier, skeptic, flat earther, you are no better than a pedophile; you are mentally ill and should be put down.

I think I might just pop next door and have a chat with the Holden people if you don’t mind says the customer.

Mind? Mind? Are you mad? You just don’t understand the complexities of a vehicle like this you ignorant non-automotive person. Let me explain a thing or two you idiot

LOL. Poirot will buy one, I'm sure!

Poirot wrote: "You seem to regard the fact that no-one has replied as some sort of trump card....I wonder why?"

Not a trump card...just instructive. As with most who have bought the AGW story without thinking about it too much, the resident warmers in this group haven't given any thought to what occurrences would bring the theory into doubt. For such people, although they demand that others follow the science, AGW is no longer a scientific theory since a scientific theory should be falsifiable. But for the Poirot's and Bugsy's of this world AGW is always proven, never disproven, always correct never wrong. They have faith that no matter what, the story is true.

Hilariously, Poirot then goes on to prove I'm wrong by the convoluted notion that since I haven't disagreed with Cohenite I must agree with him/her and that shows that I'm wrong with my revelation that Poirot treats AGW as a religion not a science. I'm sure that in one of the many other dimensions that string theory postulates, that makes sense.
But in this dimension you just have to chuckle.

Then Robert LePage weighs in and completely misses the point. To help I'll make it plainer. All scientific theory should be falsifiable. That is there should be some way to disprove the theory. But if the theory is constructed in such a way that it can't be falsified, then its not science, its faith. There is no evidence, only assertion. If both a period of warming and a period of cooling prove the theory, then a warm (or cool) period isn't evidence, just confirmation of the faith. So I asked what the beleivers here thought would disprove the theory and they instead demonstrated that they treat it like a faith.

Maze. Touché. Cohenite. 10% of my cheque to Spindoc for the use of his particularly excellent expression will be on it's way.

A thoroughly enjoyable week of entertainment, many thanks to all!

I was about to respond to warmair's post but then realised that cohenite had already demolished most of warmair's points.

Just to add one or two more:

Warmair says: "The current rate of warming is around 0.2 deg C per decade"
Actually in the past 16 years the rate of warming is effectively 0.0c. Since 1870 the total warming is between 0.7 and 1c or less than 0.1c per decade with a fair portion occurring before 1940.

It is clear warmair doesn't understand the significance of feedbacks and I'd suspect most of those who've bought the theory without too much checking don't get it either. So a quick lesson.

The warming efficiency of CO2 is logarithmic. That is, each new tonne of CO2 put in the atmosphere is a little less efficient at warming the planet than the previous tonne. The reasons are complex but are to do with the fact that CO2 only absorbs certain wavelengths. A doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels would yield a warming of around 1c.

To get to the predicted dire scenarios of 2, 3 4 or more degrees c increases, models postulate positive feedbacks. For example, they assume that, as CO2 warms the earth it will change the level of water vapor which is a much more effective GHG. Thus, according to the models, a small CO2 effect becomes a large overall effect.

The only problem is that the evidence for positive feedbacks(ie ones that increase temps) is, at best, equivocal and at worst, all but non-existent. Although the evidence for negative feedbacks is not much better, the models all but ignore them as a possibility.

Apparently the upcoming IPCC report will admit that they aren't at all sure about feedbacks either to their extent or even sign.

The whole CAGW theory relies on the feedbacks being real and significantly positive. Hence my comment that I'd need to see evidence for that before I start to believe the theory.

It seems spindoc has succumbed to the late stages of Black CohenKnight Syndrome. Symptoms include a penchant to blog-publish grossly over-imaginative prose - and is often accompanied by a diminution in the urge to utter the phrase "bovine excrement" (the constant repetition of which is a first stage symptom of the syndrome).

mhaze obviously fancies himself as another cohenite and his doing his gosh-darndest impression of someone pretending he knows what he's talking about.

Prompete is sitting in the first row, positively starstruck.

It's quite a touching scene, really.

As Bugsy said, it is entertaining and it's great fun having a bit of a joust with you guys, but lets not pretend you guys really know what you're talking about - eh?