Global Warming

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Foxfyre You obviously have not read much of the thread. My remarks were re well-credentialed scientists--each one with a verifiable bio on line--who are AGW skeptics who have jumped ship. In other words, they were once listed among those supporting theories of AGW, but they have come to admit that the science doesn't support those theories and the models used as evidence by the AGW camp are badly flawed. This conversation was in rebuttal to another member who submitted names of 'pro AGW scientists' most of which nobody can verify on the internet or who are obviously not environmental scientists or any other kind of scientists. He then attempted to dodge his flawed list of 'scientists' by posting the standard list of pro-AGW, mostly leftwing environmental wacko funded organizations with scientific names which I countered with a similar list of anti-AGW organizations with scientific names. I inadvertently included the "Concerned Scientsts" group--nobody's idea of a valid scientific organization--on my list. I subsequently acknowledged my error in doing that. Try to keep up next time, okay?

None of this long-winded, self-justifying noise is relevant to what I made note of- that your quoted source for discrediting a group of left-wing nuts was a right-wing nut blog. I enjoyed the irony, that's all.

You're merely using this post to me to make accusations against another poster instead of facing him/her directly.
Lose one point for cowardice, but gain one for admitting an error.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: xyzer Surely you jest big-lefty? What has been provided is the latest data from satellites such as NASAs Aqua! That global temps have hit a plateau and even cooled since accurate satellite temperature measurement has been recorded? And this while AGW has increased? Here is a recent article that explains it.Climate facts to warm to | The Australian The IPCC is even admitting this salient point? Yet certain head in the sand climate zealots still wont believe the latest facts? Wont consider the fallacy that they insist on? Could the past modesl be wrong? Could Al Gores doomsday theory be Camel Hockey? If human energy use is increasing and it is the cause of global warming why hasn't the earth continued to warm in the last 10 years? Could it just be that other factors are involved in climate change? I've asked these questions and no one answers them. We just read more of te same flawed orthodoxy? You who have been claiming with absolute certainty the AGW is the cause of global warming are now hit with actual, current facts that dispute your beliefs. What say you?

Uhh...I think you meant to address that to somebody else. I haven't been claiming anything and those quotes were not mine.

[xyzer]

A reminder nerdvincent, the issue on this thread is not that there hasn't or has been global warming? The issue is what caused the climate change?

What change? You'd kill yourself to convince us there is no global warming. But the fact is: yes, there is other factors, and that's why global warming is irregular, but by no mean inexistant

There is a saying that some cant see the forest for the trees? Obviously you fit the description. We skeptics don't deny the less that one degree warming that occured in the 1900s !!! We do deny there is evidence that AGW was the major factor!
Nor do we deny that climate fluctuates and has over the eons. What the hell do you think the term AGW means? Why did cities and businesses turn off their lights last night?

What I have postulated repeatedly is that we just don't know enough about climate influences to guarantee we humans are causing them?
Recent satellite measurements are showing that as our contribution has increased(AGW) the climate is not warming? Doesn't logic tell us that some other factor is a more important influencer for climate change? The Suns varying brilliance, changing magnetic influences,cosmic particle affect on cloud formation, etc?
Or as the IPCC has rationalized some compensatory factors that naturally result from general climate warming?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer What I have postulated repeatedly is that we just don't know enough about climate influences to guarantee we humans are causing them?

Answered many times.

Quote by: Xyzer Recent satellite measurements are showing that as our contribution has increased(AGW) the climate is not warming?

Answered many times.

Quote by: Xyzer The Suns varying brilliance, changing magnetic influences,cosmic particle affect on cloud formation, etc?

Answered many times.

Quote by: Xyzer Or as the IPCC has rationalized some compensatory factors that naturally result from general climate warming?

Answered many times, and a straw man to boot, since I've never once referred to an IPCC reports.


.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Sonart . Answered many times. Answered many times. Answered many times. Answered many times, and a straw man to boot, since I've never once referred to an IPCC reports. .

They always use the IPCC strawman, in my experience.I got sick of debating these GW denialists long ago. They are utterly impervious to reason and will use every dishonest tactic they can to rationalize their avoidance of the obvious. The reason for this is simple- if they can avoid admitting human activities cause climate change, they won't feel duty bound to do something about it by changing their own wasteful habits. It's just pure selfishness and laziness. It always comes down to a duel of sources when debating these people. They bring out their "experts", about 98% of whom are shilling for the oil and gas industry or contributers to far-right "think tanks". You then post your sources, and no matter how impeccable the credentials of the scientists you quote, the denialists will still bleat that they represent a vast left-wing conspiracy. Then they'll shriek hysterically about the IPCC and Al Gore some more.

I admire your valiant efforts to educate them, though.

[Matt W]

Drop the personal shots, big_lefty.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Phil_80]

Quote by: ruiner It isn't a myth: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...rrent.anom.jpg And remember that's extent, not thickness. The area extent loss during last summer's dramatic melt has been gained again by freezing, but how thick that ice can get during this winter will be an important factor in how it fares during the melt period this summer.

See my previous point ruiner.

[xyzer]

Sonart, are you and big_lefty paying attention?
I didn't say you had referred to the IPCC! I pointed out that the article I referred to, mentioned it..

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

It was obviously an embarrassed IPCC attempt to answer the question of the temperature plateauing of the past decade? At least the IPCC recognizes that this has suggested other natural factors have slowed and even halted warming as AGW has increased? I hope you will agree the latest NASA Satellite measurements have overcome predictions at least in the short run? And yet the sheeplike believers refuse to recognize anything but the Gorelike alarmism and the correlation of warming and CO2 increases which kicked off in the IPCC study some eight years back.
Quit avoiding the question and answer why has warming stopped as AGW is increasing? It turns out you cant and thus you quote outdated studies, flawed statistical evidence, and long lists of outdated opinions by so called experts? What doesn't suprise is your constant attempts to attack any messenger that contravenes your beliefs..e.g. as being in the pockets of the energy companies or some other such nonsense.

Facts don't lie, conclusions based on disproved data, may?? Satellite measurements shouldn't be rejected offhand? Rational people attempt to determine why their predictions have not been proven by current facts? I'm waiting for some answers and have been for several years.

[big_lefty]

Quit avoiding the question and answer why has warming stopped as AGW is increasing?

Begging the Question fallacy. You post an unproven statement and then ask for an argument which explains it.
First, establish conclusively that warming has stopped.
Then ask for an explanation.

It turns out you cant and thus you quote outdated studies, flawed statistical evidence, and long lists of outdated opinions by so called experts?

This is intellectually dishonest. You ask for evidence, then falsely characterize the evidence given as without merit in order that you can claim your opponent did not refute your claims.

What doesn't suprise is your constant attempts to attack any messenger that contravenes your beliefs..e.g. as being in the pockets of the energy companies or some other such nonsense.

If the poster can provide evidence this is so, it does tend to discredit the message. While it's not proof that the research is fraudulent, but it puts it into question.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

Exactly what I've been pointing out to you over the last several posts, with a variety of charts and graphs.

The only thing you can't comprehend is that natural factors could be at work simultaneously with an overall dramatic rise in temperatures.

Sounds like Marohasy is feeling around for his backup rationalization, for when reality overwhelms denial...

"Oh, I wasn't saying that "mumble"man-made"mumble" global warming wasn't happening, only that there were other factors at work too."

Duh!!

.

[Matt W]

Some new info...

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'No Sun link' to climate change

[Century 25]

I'm waiting for some answers and have been for several years.

Looks like the lights are on but nobody's home.

[Jaaaman]

Al Gore and his 'precious Global Warming' is a fraud of the worst kind. Al Gore is a lying opportunist...

Funny thing... The founder of the Weather Channel is suing his ass. Serves the lying jackass right.

[JoshuaRGodinez]

Why is the CO2 graph always drawn with data from two different sources: ice cores for a while, then measurements next to a volcano for the next part. What happened to the ice core samples? Is the snow too recent to pull a core from? Why aren't the CO2 measurements done at the core site even if new cores can't be pulled? It seems weird to me.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Jaaaman Al Gore and his 'precious Global Warming' is a fraud of the worst kind. Al Gore is a lying opportunist... Funny thing... The founder of the Weather Channel is suing his ass. Serves the lying jackass right.

Argumentum ad hominem..

[Jaaaman]

Quote by: Century 25 Argumentum ad hominem..

Can't handle the truth?

[Century 25]

Quote by: Jaaaman Al Gore and his 'precious Global Warming' is a fraud of the worst kind. Al Gore is a lying opportunist...

Yep.. truth is that global warming is fact, and Gore is merely the messenger. Well.. he's not the only "messenger" - but an easy target for all to snipe at. So.. shooting the outstandingly well known ex President (by popular vote) - is easy for those that can't argue from a base of knowledge/data.. etc..

So snipe away, I'm sure Gore can handle it.

[Jaaaman]

Global warming is not fact... it's bad science. And the way this has been shoved down our throats as 'the basis of fact' is fraudolent at best. Al Gore and his buds can take there 'science' and shove it.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Jaaaman Global warming is not fact... it's bad science. And the way this has been shoved down our throats as 'the basis of fact' is fraudolent at best. Al Gore and his buds can take there 'science' and shove it.

Actually, it's very good science. I agree it isn't a "fact" because science isn't a way of establishing facts, but a way of interpreting them. How this is supposed to be a knock against the theory though, I'm not sure.

And Al Gore's "buds" you speak of would in this case be the scientific community. And telling the scientific community to take their science and stuff it is usually a poor way of convincing people of your case. Just a thought.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Jaaaman Funny thing... The founder of the Weather Channel is suing his ass. Serves the lying jackass right.

Which lying Jackass? John Coleman? He may have founded the Weather Channel but he couldn't hold on to it, being forced out after the first year. He's not even a scientist; he's currently the 'Weather Guy' for KUSI Channel 9 News in San Diego.



That's him on the left. And he's not suing anyone. He's advocating that someone should sue Gore.

[i]“ have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

Unfortunately, if such a suit were to take place, Coleman would find out just how overwhelming the case for anthropogenic global warming actually is. He's a joke.

Quote by: Jaaaman Global warming is not fact... it's bad science.

It's PROVEN fact. There may be details we don't yet completely understand, but like gravity and evolution, it's existence is a proven fact.

Quote by: Jaaaman Al Gore and his buds can take there 'science' and shove it.

Yep, an impressive argument.

.