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.
Well, they still have the blatantly untrue and inaccurate article about the 97% of climate scientists agreeing with the AGW alarmism hypothesis posted on their website, even as we speak.
But of course if you can produce a scientific, statistically sound poll that has been conducted showing that 97% of either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the AGW alarmism hypothesis, we would all like to see it.
But as you know very well, you cannot do it because it does not exist. You know this and you continue to blindly defend them anyway, even when you know this claim is baseless.
You and NASA should both stop doing that.
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree. Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree. Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog
If that is so, then why do the scientists apparently feel the need to repeatedly cook the books on this? And why does NASA continue to promote blatant falsehoods on their website, such as this one:
Of course if you can produce a scientific, statistically sound poll that has been conducted showing that 97% of either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the AGW alarmism hypothesis, we would all like to see it.
But as you know very well, you cannot do it because it does not exist.
Clearly, these people are not nearly as trustworthy or reliable as you give them credit for, or that you present them as.
and there in lies the rub against AGW climate change. i am watching the history channels show "little ice age:big chill". one of the things the scientists, all climate or earth scientists by the way, say is that MAN CANNOT CONTROL THE CLIMATE. it is going to be what it is going to be, regardless of what we do. now can we have an effect on the climate? sure. but it wont be a large effect. we can have a small effect at best.
want to have a real conversation about it? start with the history. And don't bother mentioning that 62 million year ago it was far hotter than now. "It is hotter now than it ever was."
Let us see 15,000 years ago or something like that. A large part of the northern hemisphere was covered by ice.
Now it isn't.
It got warmer.
Did we do that?
1315 it got colder.
1730 -ish it started warming up again.
Is it still warming up?
Is it cooling off?
Why?
You're like some sort of ironic punishment from The Twilight Zone.
No, humans do not cause all warming.
The current warming trend can only be explained by CO2 from emissions.
Warming didn't stopped in 1998, it still getting warmer, the rate has slowed, there are reasons for that.
I'm sick of explaining this over and over and over and over and over.
want to have a real conversation about it? start with the history. And don't bother mentioning that 62 million year ago it was far hotter than now. "It is hotter now than it ever was."
i dont have to go back 62 million years, just back to the last interglacial period which was in fact hotter than this one, and to the one before than which was also hotter than this one. in fact go back to the 6th and 7th centuries, and you will find that they were hotter than today. the dark ages were cooler, and the little ice age after the medieval warm period was cooler than today. these are all cyclical, and all natural.
You're like some sort of ironic punishment from The Twilight Zone.
No, humans do not cause all warming.
Glad to hear that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
The current warming trend can only be explained by CO2 from emissions.
Bull Fertilizer. The soot emissions at the start of the industrial revolution far outweighed the CO2 input back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Warming didn't stopped in 1998, it still getting warmer, the rate has slowed, there are reasons for that.
I'm sick of explaining this over and over and over and over and over.
I bet. But the current discussion is about some numbers that looked to have been cooked.
i dont have to go back 62 million years, just back to the last interglacial period which was in fact hotter than this one, and to the one before than which was also hotter than this one. in fact go back to the 6th and 7th centuries, and you will find that they were hotter than today. the dark ages were cooler, and the little ice age after the medieval warm period was cooler than today. these are all cyclical, and all natural.
Ya but that all stopped when we started burning coal. Didn't you get the memo?
Bull Fertilizer. The soot emissions at the start of the industrial revolution far outweighed the CO2 input back then.
Soot emissions aren't the largest driver in the current warming trend, but they probably did play a part in ending the little ice age and reducing them would be a good idea. Since about the 1950s, CO2 has been the biggest driver and it's the one that is most concerning because it remains in the atmosphere for about a century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
I bet. But the current discussion is about some numbers that looked to have been cooked.
I've posted two articles in this thread that explain why it isn't true.
The accountant and the liar are probably less ignorant of climate science than the people on this thread, but they know how to cherry pick and they know how to give you just enough info to make you see a scandal where none exists.
i dont have to go back 62 million years, just back to the last interglacial period which was in fact hotter than this one, and to the one before than which was also hotter than this one. in fact go back to the 6th and 7th centuries, and you will find that they were hotter than today. the dark ages were cooler, and the little ice age after the medieval warm period was cooler than today. these are all cyclical, and all natural.
Ford, Chevrolet and New York Edison. Didn't you get the memo?
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.
