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.
Do us a favor and reserve your Myth Busting Web Skeptic site for those on the underside of the IQ average ......
LOL, I ahven't clicked one link but it's interesting the same site keeps getting linked too. Could actually be his or he's being pid to link for it. Professional spamming is actually big business believe it or not.
LOL, I ahven't clicked one link but it's interesting the same site keeps getting linked too. Could actually be his or he's being pid to link for it. Professional spamming is actually big business believe it or not.
Translated into plain English ... CO2 was never the cause of global warming over the past 400,000 years, but it is now, and you should believe us, because we use fancy phrases like "shifts toward interglacials" rather than layman terms like "global warming periods".
The facts are, this confirms what I previously stated ... that climate record data shows that CO2 has NEVER CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING BEFORE.
OK let's take this one step at a time.
-In the past warming temperatures caused by natural climate processes caused the oceans to release CO2. So then, as G'N'T, rightly says CO2 lagged temperature rise by hundreds of years. That isn't controversial and is accepted by mainstream science and most "climate sceptics" too! (There are some "climate sceptics" who refuse to accept data going back more than 6,000 or so years!)
-This naturally released CO2 caused more warming which caused even more CO2 to be released.
- Eventually natural changes caused the temperature to drop, CO2
was reabsorbed.
- Rinse and repeat for many cycles.
Nowadays we have the situation where there is a man made rise in atmospheric CO2. Mainstream science and even "climate sceptic" scientists like Roy Spencer say that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming. See: GW 101 « Roy Spencer, Ph. D. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists.
However, according to T'N'G, logic proves that CO2 cannot cause warming. That would only be true if he can show that CO2 is not a green house gas.
Given that the effectiveness of anything from air-to-air missiles and remote sensing of gas leaks from pipelines depend on the physics behind the greehouse effect, I don't think that is doable. But go for it...
Do yourself and us a favour and look at them before posting in future.
THis is HILARIOUS! Did you actually read the "retorts" that you say are from "the scientific literature"?
These responses are canned political responses that do not have the factual scientific data or peer reviewed literature to support the contentions. Again, your embracing these issues is the ANTITHESIS OF SCIENCE.
You are a part of cult which does not understand the scientific method, statistics, peer review, and the concept of what constitutes factual data. Like any cult member, you refuse to process any facts contrary to your core beliefs, as it erodes confidence in your "faith". Your beliefs are far from true science and it is comical and ironic that you would actually believe so.
How many papers have you written in the peer reviewed literature? How many bench scientific studies have you conducted? Have you ever reviewed scientific papers for the peer reviewed literature? Have you ever had any training in statistical analysis with regard to evaluating scientific data? Obviously, you have no clue as to what constitutes real science and a good paper, yet you claim expertise in this area. Amazing!
I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from harry_readme.txt....
Because they were vexatious: the ClimateAudit site asked its readers to make many requests each asking for data from 5 countries. This lead to one idiot submitting the request FOI_09-97, shown here http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/02%20July%20CRU%20FOI%20&%20EIR%20requests.pdf: (broken link)
"I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any
confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of
CRUTEM data to non-academics involing the following
countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different
from ones already requested1]
1. the date of any applicable confidentiality agreements;
2. the parties to such confidentiality agreement,
including the full name of any organization;
3. a copy of the section of the confidentiality agreement
that "prevents further transmission to non-academics".
4. a copy of the entire confidentiality agreement,
These responses are canned political responses that do not have the factual scientific data or peer reviewed literature to support the contentions. Again, your embracing these issues is the ANTITHESIS OF SCIENCE...
... Obviously, you have no clue as to what constitutes real science and a good paper, yet you claim expertise in this area.
Well, I guess you only looked at the "Basic" versions: your choice.
For those who can handle it, try the Intermediate and Advanced versions.
Stop projecting: I make no claims about my expertise.
Excuse my boldness in troubling You Oh Mighty One, but..
where are the links to the literature supporting your position?
So far it appears that you're strong in bluster and hypocrisy but weak on facts. Please do something to correct this, possible false, impression that you give.
The warming trend started in about 1730. At this time the amount of CO2 released by human activity was small, (today we are burning 1 cubic mile of oil a year and that doesn’t include the coal). The amount of CO2 then was inside of the background noise of the environment. So the start of the warming trend was not man, unless it was something like soot painting the snow black. The temperature rise is being stated as being consistent from the 1880’s until now.
If the start wasn’t man then the rest wasn’t him as well.
Well, no. There is natural climate change: you know Ice Ages and all that.
The point is not whether it goes up or down. It goes up on most stations since records started, at a very slow and predictable rate. Same thing with those going down, a slow and predictable rate. Yu could just about time your watch to the rise of all in sea levels from those records over more than 1 1/2 century.
Coalman: Only you can answer this question. Truthfully please:
are you an idiot or do you think that we are all idiots?
That line that goes down or up at a predictable rate: that's the trend line over the whole period. It shows the average over the whole period so it has to be like that. If you want to know if the trend is changing you have to calculate the trends over shorter time periods and compare them.
You're right I would owning my own forum and being a moderator for phpBB.com which is open source project that makes forum software, some of the features that will be in future releases to prevent and detect spamming I've had direct input on.
I've never hidden who I am and if you really wanted look it wouldn't take too long.
Coalman: Only you can answer this question. Truthfully please:
are you an idiot or do you think that we are all idiots?
That line that goes down or up at a predictable rate: that's the trend line over the whole period. It shows the average over the whole period so it has to be like that. If you want to know if the trend is changing you have to calculate the trends over shorter time periods and compare them.
Trying to insult me is pointless, I'm not taking the bait. Of course I'm talking about the observed data which the trend line mimics because it's so steady and completely predictable. There isn't any graphs on that site that show any change in the rate they are rising or falling . I'll have to correct myself on the "slow" part, it's falling at alarming rate in Stockholm.
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.
