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.
Since you ignore any actual cites given to you, I will just stop replying.
I replied to your cites, pointing out that they proved nothing.
You have not replied, either with a post that identifies what language in your cites DOES prove a link between man's activities and Climate Change (unsurprising since there is no such language in them), or with anything else except empty accusations and a statement that you have nothing more to say.
Your lack of substantive response is not unexpected, nor is your empty bluster.
------------------------
13 pages and still not a single study proving a link between man's activities and Global Whatever.
The perfect 0-for-everything record of failure remains unblemished.
"Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning."
Believe me, it hurts to copy and paste from a website rather than from scientific studies themselves. But you've gotta do what you've gotta do.
For my next trick, I'll link to a single study that proves gravity!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
I replied to your cites, pointing out that they proved nothing.
You have not replied, either with a post that identifies what language in your cites DOES prove a link between man's activities and Climate Change (unsurprising since there is no such language in them), or with anything else except empty accusations and a statement that you have nothing more to say.
Your lack of substantive response is not unexpected, nor is your empty bluster.
------------------------
13 pages and still not a single study proving a link between man's activities and Global Whatever.
The perfect 0-for-everything record of failure remains unblemished.
I replied to your cites, pointing out that they proved nothing.
You have not replied, either with a post that identifies what language in your cites DOES prove a link between man's activities and Climate Change (unsurprising since there is no such language in them), or with anything else except empty accusations and a statement that you have nothing more to say.
Your lack of substantive response is not unexpected, nor is your empty bluster.
------------------------
13 pages and still not a single study proving a link between man's activities and Global Whatever.
The perfect 0-for-everything record of failure remains unblemished.
Thats a straight out lie. Are you actually claiming you subscribe to science? Because we all know you didn't read the cites let alone understand them.
How about the conclusion:
"Our observational results make clear that each individual component of Earth’s climate system that we have examined has warmed over the latter half of the 20th century and that the dominant change in heat content is associated with the warming of the world ocean. "
Or from the discussion:
"We document a warming of Earth’s climate system during the latter half of the 20th century, based on in- creases in the heat content of the atmosphere and ocean, as well as estimates of the total heat of fusion associated with the partial melting of several components of Earth’s cryosphere. .....This is because the change in ocean heat content was by far the dominant sink of heat during this period....Based on a linear trend, the simulated heat content in- creased by 19.7 1022 J over the period 1955 to 1996."
I'm sorry but most of the list is comprised of engineers not scientist and those who are scientist, judging from their titles, have nothing to do with climate research. I might point out that 49 former or current employees out of the 18,000 employed by NASA just isn't all that impressive.
"Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning."
They point to an answer... but do not yet prove it. They do not eliminate all other possible answers to why the climate changes up or down - nor explain why we see similar changes in terrestrial records from hundreds of thousands of years ago, or contemporary records from other planets showing similar trend to what we see on Earth.
Nice try, though. Actually reading what you're shovelling, is good exercise for you, and not a bad introduction to the state of climate reasearch... or its lack of delineated conclusions.
Quote:
Believe me, it hurts to copy and paste from a website rather than from scientific studies themselves.
Finding there is no conclusive evidence to prove your ideas, frequently feels like that. We often discover wisdom, however painfully, even if we do not discover success.
Quote:
For my next trick, I'll link to a single study that proves gravity!
Go ahead. We did that in my High School physics class - and it was quite conclusive. They not only prove it exists, they measure it, and prove their measured values.
Good to see you are catching up, however slowly.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 04-11-2012 at 07:38 PM..
Are you actually claiming you subscribe to science?
I'm claiming that the Manmade Global Whatever fanatics do not, and pointing out the reasons for claiming that... and waiting for them to come up with a study that indicates otherwise.
And waiting.
They are the ones who want us to change our ways. They must prove (a) the need, and (b) the ability to do so. In 40-plus years, they have failed 100% to do so.
Still waiting.
Quote:
Because we all know you didn't read the cites let alone understand them.
The usual empty bluster from someone who has failed: Now it's my fault you can't prove your point. Pretty juvenile of you.
I like the Pravda tactic, though: They made famous the trick of trying to push something that wasn't true, by announcing that "Everybody knows that..." and hoping their audience would believe them, in lieu of any demonstration it was true.
Quote:
How about the conclusion:
"Our observational results make clear that each individual component of Earth’s climate system that we have examined has warmed over the latter half of the 20th century and that the dominant change in heat content is associated with the warming of the world ocean. "
Or from the discussion:
"We document a warming of Earth’s climate system during the latter half of the 20th century, based on in- creases in the heat content of the atmosphere and ocean, as well as estimates of the total heat of fusion associated with the partial melting of several components of Earth’s cryosphere. .....This is because the change in ocean heat content was by far the dominant sink of heat during this period....Based on a linear trend, the simulated heat content in- creased by 19.7 �� 1022 J over the period 1955 to 1996."
That's not a conclusion, it's a summary of evidence - and a far from complete one, even of the evidence given in the cites.
And, of course, any mention of how man must conclusively have caused the changes they document, is conspicuously absent.
Ok, I'll make a graph with "HOOMANS' on the x-axis and "GLOBAL WHATEVER" on the y-axis and single line with a positive slope. I'll say it came from Watt-Up-Bro!, so you'll have to believe it.
We seriously can't make this any simpler to understand.
But since I understand and accept the science you are assuming that you know my politically ideology. Shame on you.
Kind of have to be a part of the conversation in order to be a target (note my response was to a poster who was responding to someone other than you). If my comment does not refer to you, then you have no concern, and if you do not think there are many posters who take such an approach, do a search for my name and this type of topic from over the last few years and you will see many who have attacked with such accusation while refusing to discuss the science of the issue.
Since you have not taken that approach to the discussion, I guess we can assume my comment did not encompass you though right?
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.
