Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The core position of AGW is politics due to its serious lacking in the science as we have shown many times over in this thread to all of your responses.
LOL. And AGW stands for what again, "Al Gore's Winnings"?
You get dismissed here because you can't find a single peer-reviewed study in a scientific journal that supports anything you claim.
If your "studies" pass scientific muster, why aren't they being published? Oh, right - it's a giant conspiracy.
Here is a recent story that actually is founded on peer-reviewed research:
Satellites measure more heat being trapped by CO2. On top of this, ice cores find temperature affects the amount of CO2 in the air. So warming causes more CO2 and more CO2 causes warming. Put these two together and you get positive feedback.
All 4 arguments highlight 4 distinct human fingerprints on climate change. Once I'd compiled all the evidence into a single document, I sent it around to a handful of climate boffins to nitpick any inaccuracies in the text. Much thanks must go to the scientists who examined the Scientific Guide and helped clarify the text (they're all acknowledged in the inside cover).
You get dismissed here? Are you suggesting that Nomander, by far the most knowledgeable and credible poster here on this topic, gets dismissed here?
Lol!!!!
I'd suggest you revisit that viewpoint and this time poll all who youdismissed the first time. Namely, anyone other than ideologically blinded eco-fanatics bent on ending human habitation of "the planet", thereby "saving it" and proving themselves worthy to the great eco-God in the sky of eternal carbon-free bliss.
I don't argue Al gore, never really did other than to comment on the researchers work to which he used (Hansen, Briffa, Jones).
As for "peer-reviewed", that is a worn out line, especially considering the problems with the IPCC lately and the numerous finds of "reports" and "grey literature" being used by it.
The information I have posted in the past, some is published, but most is really just obvious errors pointed out with a lot of the research you use as support.
Something, by the way which would have been caught if it weren't for the fact that your heroes have corrupted a lot of the review process itself, or do I have to start posting the CRU emails showing how they worked to keep anything from being published that didn't toe the line and incestuously reviewed their own material giving it a quick pass?
You keep changing the subject. I keep posting the raw data, or showing errors in the problems of your research and you keep changing the subject and then dismissing everything with a wave the hand.
Look at how pathetic your arguments are.
You source attack. A fallacious tactic to avoid dealing with content.
You demand appeals to authority and use the same tactics to dismiss problems with your evidence.
You constantly refer to talking point comebacks by claiming "peer-review" as if to claim that somehow that makes the research impervious to error.
Seriously, your arguments are really... just a bad joke.
Satellites measure more heat being trapped by CO2. On top of this, ice cores find temperature affects the amount of CO2 in the air. So warming causes more CO2 and more CO2 causes warming. Put these two together and you get positive feedback.
All 4 arguments highlight 4 distinct human fingerprints on climate change. Once I'd compiled all the evidence into a single document, I sent it around to a handful of climate boffins to nitpick any inaccuracies in the text. Much thanks must go to the scientists who examined the Scientific Guide and helped clarify the text (they're all acknowledged in the inside cover).
I'd suggest you revisit that viewpoint and this time poll all who youdismissed the first time. Namely, anyone other than ideologically blinded eco-fanatics bent on ending human habitation of "the planet", thereby "saving it" and proving themselves worthy to the great eco-God in the sky of eternal carbon-free bliss.
LOL. Right, I think I just read a headline on Google news touting "Global Warming Debunked by Anonymous Weirdo on the Internet!"
You keep changing the subject. I keep posting the raw data, or showing errors in the problems of your research and you keep changing the subject and then dismissing everything with a wave the hand.
Have you compiled any original raw data?
Right...
I dismiss you because all of your "errors" have been proven to be common and long-debunked skeptic points.
But please, you and Crownvic save the planet from we brainwashed hippies.
I dismiss you because all of your "errors" have been proven to be common and long-debunked skeptic points.
But please, you and Crownvic save the planet from we brainwashed hippies.
If the shoe fits....
Truth and common sense will prevail in the end. Sometimes it takes a while, but at the end of the day a con will always be seen for what it is. Americans have REAL, GROWN-UP problems to deal with today and have lost patience with this GW silliness.
I learned much from reading his book- climate models he made in 1988 have turned out to be remarkably accurate- Hansen originally thought that 450ppmv CO2 could be tolerated- but past carbon dating has shown at that level the arctic would be free of ice- the antarctic would melt (the western sheets first) What is needed is to bring C02 levels back to where they have been in the Holocene- around 288ppmv- During this period earth has had stable sea levels- and a mild very stable warm interglacial climate.
With humans however CO2 has never risen this high in geologic history in so short a time- 100ppmv in about 150 years- in the distant past this would take from 1000 years or more to happen- so we are basically accelerating 10 times what took place in the past when CO2 rose for natural reasons and caused climate to change.
Hansen says we must bring CO2 levels back to 350ppmv- and quickly. If we keep on our present course a rise of 3 degrees C by mid century is inevitable- which would be catastrophic. If by mid century we do not stop CO2 emissions by 80% a 3.5-4 degree C is more then 50% possible.
Hansen's book is pretty straight forward- some knowledge of Basic climatology, Paleo History, & Astronomy are helpful.
Oh you mean have I taken the raw data and ran it through a process of homogenization that takes all of the unknown's and elements we do not understand and essentially smooths it through complex models that take all the things out that I dislike and simply displays exactly that which falls in line with my hypothesis?
No, but then that is the problem isn't it? That is exactly what I have been pointing out to you, but again you dismiss.
I am sure its all very complex, its science stuff ya known! I mean, pay no attention to the fact that they are consistently wrong or that their homogenized data is at complete odds with the raw data.
You don't respond to those points because just like your precious gods of climate science, you can't and so you are left with dismissal and smug responses of arrogance as your special armor of defense.
In the end, it makes you look silly, but blind fanatics always are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native
I dismiss you because all of your "errors" have been proven to be common and long-debunked skeptic points.
But please, you and Crownvic save the planet from we brainwashed hippies.
No, you dismiss because you can't answer to them. You see, you are used to using talking points to argue. This is why you keep linking talking point sites that do not attend to the issues and questions I ask.
If it isn't already laid out somewhere in a pre-prepared rebuttal, then you are at a loss, so you simply dismiss.
I write a lot of the questions in my own words, and I use the original data to make points. There is no talking point for that, only having knowledge about the issue and responding with what you know.
Though that unfortunately is too much work. It is so much easier to cut and paste and hey, it makes us feel smart about ourselves!
If my questions are "dis-proven", then it should be easy for you to specifically quote something you have a contest with and provide your evidence.
Let me hold my breath on that one. Not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol!!!! 
