Originally posted by cale
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Global Warming is over.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View Postand isn't it telling that rwh, and others, ALWAYS, and i mean ALWAYS, revert to the pollution scare when they can't argue the science.
nobody is advocating for pollution, and you know that. CO2 is not a pollutant, but you knew that already, or did you?
your sides arguments, and science, are withering in the face of honest scrutiny, and because we might point out areas of weakness in your failing logic, somehow we advocate increased acid rain, water pollution and widespread air pollution?
can't you do better than that?
LOL
You are the last person on the face of the Earth that should be questioning someone else's logic when you clearly don't understand the basic fundamentals of it.
So you are against climate change science but "bought" sulfur dioxide created acid rain? Why do you attack one bit of science but seem to accept the other, or do you question the accepted science of acid rain as well? (Don't want to assume) And what was the most efficient means of solving that issue?
Comment
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View Postre-read what i posted cale
it would still be a terrible argument if north america was the only continent that's saw record temps, but since it's not, it's a completely idiotic one.
Comment
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
And if you think you can even argue the 'oh, look! it got colder here global warming must not be real!' card you are losing your mind. People call it global climate 'change' since some places get warmer and some get colder, but on average the world heats up. We melted a glacier the size of canada for goodness sake.
http://grist.org/news/how-much-ice-h...-cover-canada/
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/exec_summary.html
So your only rebuttal to the fact that a glacier the size of canada that has been around for a few thousand years melting completely would have to be that the earth is 'natural' heating cycle.
So I check my little site here... http://www.skepticalscience.com/
and give you this link here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arct...r-man-made.htm
While it's true that natural variations of the climate have caused significant changes in Arctic ice extent in the past, it's important to note that such changes are not airtight arguments against anthropogenic global warming causing today's loss of ice. After all, events of the past do not describe newly identified influences by human culture on today's climate.
Indeed, comparisons between past and present Arctic climate reveal different reasons for yesterday's and today's Arctic sea ice changes and strongly suggest that today's changes are largely anthropogenic ( Overpeck et al ). Meanwhile, analysis of several hundred indicators of past Arctic sea ice extent tells us that recent losses appear to have no parallel in records going back many thousands of years ( Polyak et al ).
The past 200 years offers an example of how natural and anthropogenic influences on Arctic sea ice can be distinguished. The Arctic appears to have undergone an unusually cool period in the early 19th century, certainly natural, with recovery to more normal conditions extending into the 20th century leading to the warming we see today. Referring to the graph above, we can see that after the earlier cool period sea ice extent in the Arctic appears to have largely stabilized, later to begin a steady decline in chorus with other emerging observations of global warming such as increasing air and ocean temperatures. This decline in ice extent is happening even though the causes for natural recovery from the unusual cold of the 19th century are no longer in play, while research strongly suggests these recent reductions in Arctic sea ice are caused by a new, anthropogenic mechanism ( Johannessen et al ).
In sum, although natural factors have always influenced the state of Arctic sea ice, research strongly suggests that today's decline is driven by the novel influence of anthropogenic CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and thus is unique in Earth's history.
So then i would have to look up a curriculum vitae for all of them:
I started with Johannessen's paper: Arctic climate change: observed and modelled temperature and sea-ice variability
By OLA M. JOHANNESSEN1,2∗, LENNART BENGTSSON3,4,1, MARTIN W. MILES5,6,
SVETLANA I . KUZMINA7, VLADIMIR A. SEMENOV3,8, GENRIKH V. ALEKSEEV9,
ANDREI P. NAGURNYI9, VICTOR F. ZAKHAROV9, LEONID P. BOBYLEV7, LASSE H.
PETTERSSON1, KLAUS HASSELMANN3 and HOWARD P. CATTLE10, 1Nansen Environmental
and Remote Sensing Center, Bergen, Norway; 2Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen, Norway; 3Max Planck
Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany; 4Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading, UK;
5Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway; 6Environmental Systems Analysis Research Center, Boulder,
Colorado, USA; 7Nansen International Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, St Petersburg, Russia; 8Obukhov
Institute of Atmospheric Physics RAS, Moscow, Russia; 9Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St Petersburg, Russia;
10Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Bracknell, UK
You have to prove to me that each institute and each scientist is wrong and you can't because they are not.
You will attempt to rebut that they are all part of a international conspiracy to stop exxon from making money and people from having fun or something equally crazy because you have no more logical comebacks.
You ignore the science, you attempt to debase a scientists reputation when there are 100s more scientists saying the same thing, you then claim conspiracy and secret world plots with no proof or evidence, and then you try to change the subject to something like "revert to the pollution scare when they can't argue the science." or " CO2 is not a pollutant, but you knew that already, or did you?"
Should we argue over the definition of 'pollution' next?
Look at this fuckers resume~
OMJ is the author and co-author of 500 publications of which 7 are books (6 Springer- 1 American Geophysical Union) and 136 are in referee journals, books and proceedings,
He has 144 cited research papers listed on on his resume. Not exactly a crackpot with two books on how global warming is a lie. It makes you look bad when you try to cite a guy, blog, or any reference with no experience or background, vs a guy like mcmotherfuckin Ola M. Johannessen.
Chairman of the Guardian Board of the Nansen International Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NIERSC) in St. Petersburg, Russia, the Chairman of the Board of the Nansen Center in Cochin, India, the Co-Chairman of the Board of the Nansen-Zhu Center at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Chinese Academy of Science in Beijing where he also formally is a Visiting Professor and appointed as Guest Professor at Peking University, Beijing and Co-Chairman of the Board of the Nansen-Tutu Marin Center at University of Cape Town, South Africa.
And that is where it ends- one side must literally deny the scientists, institutions, and the data, in order to keep arguing their side. So keep denying it~ but you cant post some bs about "sides arguments, and science, are withering in the face of honest scrutiny" when you can't actually find any honest scrutiny not funded by an oil company. You are getting played, bro- wakeup!
And again, even if you don't want to believe the co2 issue, you should still be against pollution which it seems like you are. So either way we conclude that we should limit pollution so that we don't end up with the 'airpocalypse' like is going on in chinatown.http://www.npr.org/2013/01/14/169305324/beijings-air-quality-reaches-hazardous-levels
In the end the good ole USA needs to get its ass in gear and get some international pollution laws going so that china and india can start getting on board too. Or their own people will do it anyway and the usa will start making toys for mcdonalds china with no pollution controls. ah the pendulum of capitalism.
Comment
-
Originally posted by nando View Postthat an entire continent is a "local" area?
it would still be a terrible argument if north america was the only continent that's saw record temps, but since it's not, it's a completely idiotic one.
and Q-man, yes i am not pro-pollution, just like (assumed) you. and no, not every scientist that disagrees with you and others about AGW are funded by oil. it's a weak-ass rebuttal and tiresome as you know its not true. and what you also know to be true is that there is no causal proof that CO2 is the cause of the warming we have seen over the last 150 years. anecdotal evidence sure. but your models would actually be predictive and accurate if the science was sound. but that's not what we have, is it?
instead we have scientists adjusting their models to fit the observed outcomes. it's completely backwards.
if you have a theory that global warming is anthro, and have climate models based on that theory's science, you would actively try to disprove the theory, to see if it's accurate and predictive. climate models today are neither, which means their underlying theories are flawed.“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View Postwhat i've read says 2012, worldwide, was not close to any record, warming or extreme weather. so yes, north america is a "local" event.
You didn't read the NOAA report, did you? except the bit that was probably taken out of context on your favorite conspiracy blog site.
An analysis of global temperatures and precipitation, placing the data into a historical perspective
The year 2012 was the 10th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 36th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century (2001–2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2012.
•Separately, the 2012 global average land surface temperature was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F) and ranked as the seventh warmest year on record.
•La Niña, which is defined by cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean that affect weather patterns around the globe, was present during the first three months of 2012. The weak-to-moderate La Niña dissipated in the spring and was replaced by ENSO-neutral conditions for the remainder of the year. When compared to previous La Niña years, the 2012 global surface temperature was the warmest observed during such a year; 2011 was the previous warmest La Niña year on record.
•The 2012 global average ocean temperature was 0.45°C (0.81°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F) and ranked as the 10th warmest year on record. It was also the warmest year on record among all La Niña years. The three warmest annual ocean surface temperatures occurred in 2003, 1998, and 2010—all warm phase El Niño years.The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.
The Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.
just like you say the mideival warming period was a "local" northern europe event.
and no, not every scientist that disagrees with you and others about AGW are funded by oil.
and what you also know to be true is that there is no causal proof that CO2 is the cause of the warming we have seen over the last 150 years. anecdotal evidence sure.
but your models would actually be predictive and accurate if the science was sound.
climate models today are neither, which means their underlying theories are flawed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View Postand Q-man, yes i am not pro-pollution, just like (assumed) you. and no, not every scientist that disagrees with you and others about AGW are funded by oil. it's a weak-ass rebuttal and tiresome as you know its not true. and what you also know to be true is that there is no causal proof that CO2 is the cause of the warming we have seen over the last 150 years. anecdotal evidence sure. but your models would actually be predictive and accurate if the science was sound. but that's not what we have, is it?
instead we have scientists adjusting their models to fit the observed outcomes. it's completely backwards.
if you have a theory that global warming is anthro, and have climate models based on that theory's science, you would actively try to disprove the theory, to see if it's accurate and predictive. climate models today are neither, which means their underlying theories are flawed.sigpic
Comment
-
Actually I am just trolling the unbelievers so we can make sure we cover all the normal bases.
If you need any more denial-ammo you just search through this link:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_T...showtopic=2050
And then I respond with something from link:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Or just read through the citations of the wiki and pull a conclusion from there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
"instead we have scientists adjusting their models to fit the observed outcomes. it's completely backwards. "
U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[222] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[223][224][225] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.
Good reads all around~ I now hate the government more than ever.
Comment
-
mr.Q, do you really want to support your views with john cook's website? and you accuse me of bias (or stupidity as herbal says)?
this is a website (skepticalscience.com) that:
1. repeats the 97% myth, which is so easily disproven its surprising anyone actually believes it. and further, science has never been about consensus. science is at its core anti-consensus.
2. al gorebasm's movie was judged in UK courts to have 9 major errors (lies) and educators must, if they show the movie to students, explain what the errors are and also explain that the movie is propoganda.
3. since global warming should, according to you, first appear at the poles (which maybe occuring at one and certainly not at the other), extreme weather events should recede, not go up.
etc etc etc
and herbal, you haven't proved anything, you've argued one side of the coin while ignoring the other. and i'm stupid? LOL“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Originally posted by cale View PostHey there's the Antarctica misinformation again! Never fail to entertain and blindly beat away at the same points regardless of factuality.“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
and Q5, here lies the real issue no?
you believe wattsupwiththat is a crackpot website
i believe john cook and skepticalscience to be a left wing attack blog
both sides are overtly political in their aims
you have the head of the EPA hiding emails
and science gets corrupted
and i'm a skeptic
LOL“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
Comment