It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:49 pm

All times are [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:47 pm 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Robert Tulip wrote:
Alright, you never claimed to be rational and honest. I made that up...

That's right, I made no such claims, and feel no need to make such claims. You made a false statement. You've made a number of false statements concerning me. Why you would engage in such behaviour if the facts are on your side is beyond me.

Quote:
I am a stickler for accuracy where it matters.

If you decide it doesn't matter, you are not concerned at making false statements. Got it.

Quote:
The site I linked implied that Lord Borat Mockturtle was chucked out of Doha for falsely asserting the planet is not warming...

Yes, they did imply that. So you see how pro-warming sites can be misleading.
Regarding Mockton, he is a politician, as is Al Gore. Neither are scientists. They are simply presenters. While I would likely abhor the politics of Monckton (but to be fair I don't know his politics), I think his presentation of the skeptics viewpoint is accurate and entertaining. These are not his ideas. Shooting the messenger is meaningless to me. It only indicates your wish to distract from the facts.

Quote:
Quote:
...The statement "it hasn't warmed in 16 years" is accurate and nobody disputes that.
Whoopsie! Maybe you meant 15 years – since the warm year of 1998. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadc ... rison.html shows that the global warming linear trend over 16 years is plus 0.06 degrees Celsius (chart below), while the trend over 15 years is still plus 0.05 degrees. So your statement is false, and is hotly rejected by real scientists.

Wrong again. According to the skeptical science website which YOU linked to, there has been no statistically significant warming of surface temperatures in 16 years. I think the interesting thing to note here is the dishonesty of the warmists. Rather than say, "yes there has been virtually no warming for the past 16 years, and we did not expect that, and we don't know how to account for it", they refuse to acknowledge a simple fact and try to cover it up with all manner of rhetorical contortions. This kind of behaviour is the sort of thing that made me suspicious in the first place.

Judith Curry on the lack of warming:
Quote:
JC note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years:
Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office's statement or in Nuticelli's argument effectively refutes Rose's argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.
Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don't know about climate change. Take a lesson from these other scientists that acknowledge the 'pause', mentioned in my previous post Candid comments from global warming scientists

Quote:
Quote:
...statistics can be misleading.
Come now, that is a very dangerous concession for you to make....[you]concede that denialists can be systematically deceptive?

Yet another false statement you attribute to me. Your habit of selective honesty won't help your credibility.

I have much more to write on this subject, but little time.

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:44 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 844
James, your ability to twist and ignore the facts would be beyond belief, if you were not representative of a widespread denialist cult. In saying you claimed to be rational and honest I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, drawing an implicit intent out of your post. You now appear to say (unbelievably!) that I am guilty of distortion for saying you claim to be rational and honest! You call it a "false statement" that you are rational and honest! What are readers to make of you? Are you revelling in being irrational and dishonest?

The whole warming data issue in your last post reveals you as an ignorant and deceptive fool. Did you not see that I posted data showing warming since the late 1990s? Did you not see in the chart I posted that 1998 is an outlier, which cannot reasonably be used as a base year? Did you not see that even when this deceptive outlier is used as the starting point, there has still been warming? Did you not see my explanation that in any case most warming has been in the ocean?

Monckton is guilty of similar idiocy. It is a completely reasonable inference that he was banned from UN climate talks for his idiocy, and the procedural point was just a pretext. So it is not a 'false statement' on my part, it is a reasonable inference. You just can't cope with the fact that your precious Lord Haw Haw is a liar and a fool.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:28 pm 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
If I was spouting off about how rational and honest I am, SHOW ME THE QUOTE. Otherwise you are lying. Pretty basic stuff.

The very site you quote, skepticalscience.com, acknowledges the simple fact that there has been no statistically significant warming since 97. Again, basic stuff.

Your personal fantasies into why Monckton was really banned from UN climate talks are irrelevant. Yet another basic fact that you can't admit to because it doesn't support your narrative.

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:57 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 844
Quote:
skepticalscience.com acknowledges the simple fact that there has been no statistically significant warming since 97

Wow, just wow. :shock:

Here is the link to rebut this lie: http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jo ... icant.html

To be clear, I don't think James V is lying, but he is naively repeating lies.

Cherrypicked data from the shillsite WUWT was used for a loaded TV question. A technical scientific answer was grossly distorted by propagandists such as Fox News and the Daily Mail who turned 93% confidence of global warming into "no global warming". I could go on, but if you read the link, you will see that James V is digging himself into a hole, he does not have a clue, and he is simply believing lies that he wants to believe.

And then clutching at straws, he calls me a liar for saying he claimed to be rational and honest! Anyone who rolls up here and asks to be taken seriously is implicitly claiming to be rational and honest, even if they don't specifically say so. But apparently not our honest James V!

Lord Monckton is a traitor to planet earth, like a famous traitor in World War Two, Lord Haw Haw.
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Like I say, we could go back and forth on this issue all day and night, as I can continue to provide articles that demonstrate what I've previously stated.

Again, I keep coming back to the natives and their discerned climate change, as well as mountains of pollution on land and in the air and sea, chemicals in our water, toxins leaking into the rivers and streams, land being stripped off its topsoil, etc., ad nauseam.

Again, I am perplexed, because these denials are the talking points of the right-wing Christian Republican contingency, as in this Frontline episode, "Climate of Doubt."

http://video.pbs.org/video/2295533310/



As I've also stated previously, these people are often Christians who are basing their worldview not on science but on faith, and they could not care less about the planet, so they deny and twist things. Deny that there's tremendous pollution on this planet? Deny that pollution affects the land, sea and air?

It is unfortunate that this denialist mentality - often based also on SHEER GREED by the RICH ELITE - will cost our children and grandchildren tremendously. We all have to live on this planet, and intelligent stewardship, not wanton pollution and denial of such, is our right. We should not be at the mercy of big corporations and their flunkies and shareholders taking no responsibility for destroying our environment. Since we share this planet, it is our right to demand that we stop polluting the earth and to buy green, organic products wherever possible, mindful of how our choices affect our world. Conscientiousness is the bottom line.

I guess you, James, would agree with what I've said above but are confining your skepticism for the pollution of the air? Or just whether or not C02 is a serious pollutant? Are you against smog restrictions in cities? We know that the mechanism by which we are pouring tons of C02 into the air is highly polluting, and our air has suffered from it in countless places globally. Try breathing in many cities in China!

Or is the debate only whether or not such C02 pollution is causing global warming? I am good friends with a scientist, Dr. Jim DeMeo, a professional geographer who insists that we are on the cusp of a deep freeze. I've listened to him comment on the subject many times. Here's one example of his writing in this subject. I've posted many other articles of his over the years.

Super Cold in Much of Far Northern Hemisphere

As I've understood it previously, a warming trend could trigger an ice age.

In the meantime, associating oneself with that Watts Up website in general would cause many to lump one in with the individuals in the video previously provided, as that site seems to tow the entire denialist party line, such as the polar bear issue and other subjects. Indeed, Watts is associated with the Heartland Institute, which is featured in the "Climate in Doubt" documentary.

Here's an interesting quote from Wikipedia on the owner of the Wattsupwiththat.com blog, Anthony Watts:

Quote:
Watts currently (September, 2012) states his position as: "Now I'm in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors...."

That sounds a far cry from "there's no (anthropogenic) global warming" position taken earlier.

We also learn:

Quote:
In spite of his climate change skepticism, Watts says that he is "green in many ways."

So, why the fervent insistence that the mainstream science is completely wrong and the hostility towards people who are likewise "green in many ways?"

I also see mentions of Glenn Beck and FOX news in that Wiki article, so, again, it's the right-wing Christian Republicans pushing this agenda, as I stated in my blogs and articles years ago.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:24 pm 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Acharya wrote:
Like I say, we could go back and forth on this issue all day and night, as I can continue to provide articles that demonstrate what I've previously stated.

Sure, and if I were using poor sources then there would be no real debate. In the penguin example, I cited the science journal Nature. The scientist who originally published the study which suggested a global warming connection now says the problem isn't global warming after all. For me, there is a common sense component as well: is it realistic that a small increase in water temperature (a quarter of a degree) would kill 10% of penguins? I have trouble believing that. The scientific case would have to be thoroughly studied and unambiguous for me to believe that. But that is not the case at all. So until shown otherwise, I do not believe that penguins are dying because of global warming.

Same thing with polar bears.I did not quote a study from some right-wing think tank. I cited a Nunavut Government study. Here's what Nunavut locals are saying about polar bears. Based on this information, I see no reason to believe the CAGW "talking point" that polar bears are disappearing.

It appears that when a weather or environmental issue arises, CAGW supporters immediately blame global warming, no matter how tenuous and unproven the connection. That's just sloppy.

Then you have Hansen's ridiculous claim that our oceans are going to boil. If I were a scientist, and not an activist or propagandist, I would be extremely careful that my case was rock solid before making such crazy sounding claims. The IPCC itself says that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities." And climate scientist John Houghton "has written that "[there] is no possibility of [Venus's] runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth". (via wikipedia.) Why should I believe Hansen's extreme claims if the people in his own camp are unequivocally rejecting that view?

Acharya wrote:
I guess you, James, would agree with what I've said above but are confining your skepticism for the pollution of the air? Or just whether or not C02 is a serious pollutant?

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with what you said above. I am confining my skepticism to whether or not CO2 pollution is a very serious, or catastrophic danger. While there may be some heating from CO2, I think many of the claims are exaggerated, sometimes wildly. There's a lot of junk science out there. It would be nice to believe scientists were less fallible than the rest of us humans, but that is not the case.

Quote:
Are you against smog restrictions in cities?

No, I am most definitely not against smog restrictions. (I have asthma!) I support sound and effective environmental regulation. As I've said before, I am against polluting our air and water with toxins. I agree that to continue to do so is incredibly short sighted. CO2, in my opinion, is a huge distraction from these and other environmental problems. I seriously doubt that CO2 mitigation schemes would positively impact other forms of pollution. And I think some of them, especially the geoengineering schemes, are incredibly foolish and pure hubris.

Quote:
So, why the fervent insistence that the mainstream science is completely wrong and the hostility towards people who are likewise "green in many ways?"

I don't know who says mainstream science is completely wrong. I do see hostility towards environmentalists among skeptics. Most of it is likely due to political affiliation and free-market ideology. However, I think there is also another factor at play. The environmentalists that I've met won't listen to real concerns. So yeah, there is a loss of respect.

The debate is completely polarized. I delight in telling my fellow skeptics that if the catastrophe scenario really was rock solid, the lines of the debate would probably be about the same. Most skeptics are skeptics for dumb reasons, ie: political affiliation, wishful thinking, selfishness etc. People are quick to call their opponents dummies, but they don't seem to mind if the people in their own camp are dummies, so long as they agree. Needless to say I have no friends. ;)

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:22 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 844
James V wrote:
I do not believe that penguins are dying because of global warming.
Even the right wing Daily Mail said in 2012 that scientists are warning of massive breeding failure due to loss of sea ice. And what does the link James V gave have to say? Just that scientists may have accidentally killed penguins by the way they tagged them. Standard WUWT whoopsie playbook – slag off scientists for killing cuddly birds, then switch to baseless assertion that birds are not affected by global warming.
Quote:

no reason to believe the CAGW "talking point" that polar bears are disappearing.
CAGW is WUWT-speak for ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’. It is used derisively to imply we have no need to worry about a looming catastrophe. Bjorn Lomborg, who I respect, argues more polar bears are killed by shooters than by global warming. But with 2012 polar ice shrinking to less than half the recent amounts, this is hardly something to warm your cockles.
Quote:
Hansen's ridiculous claim that our oceans are going to boil.
Hansen did not say the oceans will boil. The planetary stability processes of Gaia will probably prevent it. But the Business-As-Usual proposal to shift all carbon from the crust to the air would boil the oceans. So Hansen’s argument is that mining all coal and tar sands and oil shale as proposed by BAU is physically impossible because of its climate impact. Climate change would destroy the global economy long before such an evil project was completed.
Quote:
The IPCC itself says that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities." And climate scientist John Houghton "has written that "[there] is no possibility of [Venus's] runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth". (via wikipedia.) Why should I believe Hansen's extreme claims if the people in his own camp are unequivocally rejecting that view?
James, you are just playing with words. Hansen has made no extreme claims about runaway greenhouse, he has simply observed that the quantity of CO2 in the crust is enough to boil the sea if we shifted it to the air. No one except Watt and those of his ilk want to try this mad experiment. Houghton’s comment appears to be premised on the assumption of a shift away from fossil fuels since he says “global warming is the most important environmental problem the world faces.” His quote is behind a paywall, so there is no basis to assess your extreme language (“unequivocally rejecting”) especially given the WUWT track record of distorting what scientists say, as in the ‘no warming since 97’ charade discussed above.
Quote:
geoengineering schemes are incredibly foolish
Your florid opinion on this topic is grounded in your baseless assumption that Business As Usual would not produce catastrophe. Such complacency was behind the failure to prepare for Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. With leading world reinsurer Munich Re expecting continued growth in severe weather events (see chart below), the precautionary principle indicates we should be actively researching methods of climate management. What is “incredibly foolish”, to use your phrase, is denial of abundant scientific evidence of global warming.

Quote:
…hostility towards environmentalists among skeptics. Most of it is likely due to political affiliation and free-market ideology.
I wish you wouldn’t keep calling denialists skeptics. They are not skeptics, they are fools. Skeptics base their opinions on evidence, and change their views to align with facts.
Yes, it is a tragedy that class warfare has defined the debate on our planetary future. Science has been connected to left wing politics since the days of the enlightenment, for example with the communist anthem The Internationale saying ‘reason in revolt now thunders’. The apocalyptic scenario painted by many environmentalists suggests that economic growth is bad, so it is hardly surprising that people who start from a free market premise will find any excuse to reject the science of global warming. I myself support free market capitalism, and see private entrepreneurial invention as the only thing that will save us from global warming. So I would like to see a shift in the terms of the debate so conservatives support commercial innovation. The leftists, in my opinion, subordinate climate change to their interest in increased state control, through carbon taxes, and this is the basis of the extreme suspicion that free market people have towards climate change.
Quote:
environmentalists that I've met won't listen to real concerns. So yeah, there is a loss of respect.
And that illustrates how the ideologies function as religious dogmas. We need to work out how policies can be based on evidence. The denialist crowd are as bad or worse than the acolytes of the failed Kyoto Protocol.
Quote:
Needless to say I have no friends. ;)
It is interesting to compare the global warming debate with the Christ Myth debate. Anyone who insists on a purely evidentiary approach will find themselves ostracised. As Jesus put it in Matthew 7, the path to salvation is narrow and hard, while the road to destruction is broad and easy.
Attachment:
Natural Catastrophes Worldwide 1980 to 2010.gif
Natural Catastrophes Worldwide 1980 to 2010.gif [ 30.18 KiB | Viewed 4993 times ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:28 am 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Hi Robert. I said there has been no statistically significant warming of surface temperatures in 16 years.

Here's what YOUR SOURCE skepticalscience.com says about it: "...0.05°C is a small increase, and not statistically significant...".

You can argue all you want about this simple, discreet fact. But what you can't do is continue to deny it.

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:34 am 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Hi Robert. Here is a video of Hansen expressing his views. Are you saying that he doesn't really believe this will happen? Is he just trying to frighten people?


_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:35 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 844
James V wrote:
Here's what YOUR SOURCE skepticalscience.com says about it: "...0.05°C is a small increase, and not statistically significant...". You can argue all you want about this simple, discreet fact. But what you can't do is continue to deny it.

But I can read it in context, something you apparently find challenging. The very same paragraph concludes
skepticalscience.com wrote:
"this analyis is "not just cherry-picking, it’s championship cherry-picking."
And remember as I already said, "statistically significant" just means that considered in isolation (what you call "discreet"), it is only certain to 93% confidence that the world has warmed since 1997. So your big point is that there is a 7% chance (ignoring all the corroborating data) that the measured warming is a fluke. But it is very stupid and deceptive to cherry pick this isolated point and ignore the abundant evidence in the rest of the thread and site that you linked. You have found an eddy in the Mississippi and are claiming that the whole river flows upstream.

So the scientists agree, if you manipulate the data hard enough, ignore the context and squint at the right angle you can manage not to see what is blatantly there in front of your face, but it does require a heroic capacity for denial. This is a perfect example of why scientist are advised not to make statements which can be quoted out of context as you have done here.

Quote:
video of Hansen expressing his views. Are you saying that he doesn't really believe this will happen? Is he just trying to frighten people?


James, he says IF we allow emission growth to continue this is what the physics indicates. You are ignoring his word IF. His point is that we cannot afford to allow emissions to continue at the projected rate because it is so dangerous. From reading his book, which I highly recommend, you will see that Hansen thinks a runaway greenhouse will not happen because we will not be able to shift enough carbon into the air. We will come to our senses as a species well before we reach an unrecoverable tipping point. But his point stands that IF we could somehow achieve the carbon shift planned by President Obama, Wattshisname and their evil henchmen, then we would have a runaway greenhouse. The situation is dire and urgent, and yes, it is frightening because people like you are in denial. The lions are getting ready to eat the ostriches.

As Hansen says, when anyone (ie Obama) talks about targets they are lying through their teeth. It is the height of deceit to claim that emissions will reduce in the future when you are implementing policies to increase emissions. But as Hitler said, tell a big enough lie and people will not imagine you have the impudence to keep a straight face about something so important.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:29 pm 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Robert, that is probably as close as I am going to get to a concession that the following statement is not a lie as you had stated previously:

The surface temperature data, when measured from the beginning of 1997 to Aug 2012, does not show any statistically significant warming.

Now that you are no longer denying this inconvenient fact, I can address some of the concerns you have with it. You argue that while technically true, it is cherry picking. Here is what Judith Curry had to say on this:

Quote:
The whole issue of cherry picking start and end dates is a red herring, as I’ve argued in my previous post Trends, change points and hypotheses. It depends on what hypothesis you are trying to test. If you are using data to evaluate the IPCC’s projection of 0.2C/decade warming in the first two decades of the 21st century, with plateaus or pauses at most of 15-17 yrs duration, well then you can pick whatever start date you want.

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:46 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 844
Quote:
that is probably as close as I am going to get to a concession that the following statement is not a lie
It is a straight out lie.

The planet has warmed less in the last decade than in the previous decade, because of solar cycles, ocean cycles, etc, coincidentally pushing temporarily for cooling against the warming driver of CO2 emissions. So the warming has only been about 0.05 degrees per decade, one quarter of the IPCC average prediction of 0.2 degrees per decade. Big deal. IPCC is too conservative, as we are likely to get at least 0.5 degrees per decade in the rest of this century. We have just had the hottest decade on record, storing up for the next spike. Animals and plants are scurrying to cooler climes or going extinct. The zag in the warming graph is getting ready for a big zig. The ostriches say just turn up your aircon and tune out to your matrix ipod.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. In this case, the denialists exploit the usual conservative scientific norm that "significant" is used to mean a 95% certain trend. By topping and tailing the data, the denialists have found a statistical period where the warming trend can be presented as only 93% certain, two percent short of the usual norm. By ignoring physics, they can pretend we can keep burning the planet. They are just dickheads and evil fools. Welcome to Quisling Land.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:19 am 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
On the one hand you say it's a "straight out lie", but on the other hand you seem to agree that according to "usual norms" the statement is technically true. Which is it? Are you suggesting we should forgo the usual norms so you can claim the results you want?

You help prove my point that global warming alarmists won't admit to plain facts if they see them as threatening to their CAGW religious dogma; that they use all the apologetic tricks in the book to snake their way around the truth; that CAGW is apocalyptic myth in modern garb, a doomsday cult with priests who wear lab coats.

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:45 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 844
I hope you are enjoying this discussion as much as I am James. You fail to distinguish "religious dogma" from "scientific evidence". You need some pretty heavy psychological blockages to experience such confusion.

Lets go back to my first post in this thread. CO2 lets light in but doesn't let heat out. Physics 101. That is the physical reason why CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, causing global warming. For 200 years, scientists have understood that more CO2 => warmer planet. Basic physics.

Image

Now we come along and say, lets add 30 or 40 billion tonnes of CO2 to the air every year, and whoopsie, lets just see what happens! Great fun! Like sticking a lit firecracker up a cat's arse! Experimental science at its best! Ohh. Dead cat, what a shame.
Hey Rocky, looks like I better get another planet, as the great denialist Bullwinkle said.
Temperature is on a steady upward path since 1850 (see chart I posted above). Science can only explain this on the basis that humans are adding CO2 to the air. We are exponentially adding the amount of CO2 we add to the air each year. The physics is explained by Marvin the Martian:
"where's the kaboom, there was meant to be an earth shattering kaboom
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:16 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
2012 Hottest Year On Record For Lower 48 States, NOAA Confirms

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2012 was the hottest year on record over the last 118 years since records started being kept in 1895.

Image

Image

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support