Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

[edthecynic]

I find "the dog ate my homework" a much more plausable excuse.

YOU would.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Proxy data" doesn't count for the Medieval warming period, but it does when warmist hacks like Michael Mann use tree rings to "prove" their case.

Man, are we wearing out the goalpoast moving crew today or what?!?!

Besides your 'degree' in hypno-bull shit, what credible education do you have? A GED?

 

[Oddball]

My credentials aren't the subject here, the changing of criteria out of convenience is. Even someone with a mere GED can recognize that.

Now, go eat your checkers.

 

[mal]

Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

You Liberals can Stop Misplacing Guilt now... At least on this Issue.

Two is my Favorite... So far:

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.




peace...


merged-del

 

[edthecynic]

Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

You Liberals can Stop Misplacing Guilt now... At least on this Issue.

Two is my Favorite... So far:

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.




peace...
merged-del

You would be that gullible!

How many BILLIONS of years is "geological history."

Today, Man-made CO2 exceeds volcanic CO2 by a factor of 150!!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

My credentials aren't the subject here, the changing of criteria out of convenience is. Even someone with a mere GED can recognize that.

Now, go eat your checkers.

Actually it was a rhetorical question, I doubt very much you have a GED (or a HS Diploma).

 

[uscitizen]

AGW is officially a religion.

All dissent is blasphemy.


This is really strange.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Proxy data" doesn't count for the Medieval warming period, but it does when warmist hacks like Michael Mann use tree rings to "prove" their case.

Man, are we wearing out the goalpoast moving crew today or what?!?!

Have you got a better way of proving what happened that long ago? Those rings, by the way, varied from place to place all over the globe using the same tree species. Therefore, it really can't be considered a "global" warming.

 

[MaggieMae]

Would have been nice had they NOT have thrown out the raw data they based their findings on.

Whatever would have made them do such a thing I wonder...

There might have been rooms full of it and they thought once put to computerized archives, that would be the end of it. I'm sure scientists with several degrees and Ph.D's never thought they'd need to come up against a bunch of yahoos denying their hard work. If this conflict had been solely among the scientists who have what they believe a proven theory, and those who think there is more to it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But these days, everything has to have sides taken among the general public. How dumb is that? Let the SCIENTISTS do their job. Their minds are greater than anyone's found here, that's for damned sure.

 

[uscitizen]

"Proxy data" doesn't count for the Medieval warming period, but it does when warmist hacks like Michael Mann use tree rings to "prove" their case.

Man, are we wearing out the goalpoast moving crew today or what?!?!

Have you got a better way of proving what happened that long ago? Those rings, by the way, varied from place to place all over the globe using the same tree species. Therefore, it really can't be considered a "global" warming.

Yeah right the entire world warms up the same. sheesh.

 

[MaggieMae]

Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

You Liberals can Stop Misplacing Guilt now... At least on this Issue.

Two is my Favorite... So far:

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.




peace...


merged-del

Sorry, but I'll accept the findings of NOAA over a British tabloid any day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

 

[MaggieMae]

"Proxy data" doesn't count for the Medieval warming period, but it does when warmist hacks like Michael Mann use tree rings to "prove" their case.

Man, are we wearing out the goalpoast moving crew today or what?!?!

Have you got a better way of proving what happened that long ago? Those rings, by the way, varied from place to place all over the globe using the same tree species. Therefore, it really can't be considered a "global" warming.

Yeah right the entire world warms up the same. sheesh.

Don't tell me I need to explain that to YOU! The same palm species, for example, found in Iraq where it is hot and dry might have "rings" that tell a different story of its life than one found in Cuba where it's hot and humid.

Tree rings are never identical but the patterns are similar, assuming you are looking in the same geographic area. When the climate is particularly moist it will produce wider rings and in the dry years, narrow rings. Due to severe weather, trees may not produce a ring every year. To ensure they are counting accurately scientists have developed a cross check system that uses nearby resources to verify the data. By looking at a species with a known sequence of growth they can look for matching patterns in the unknown and perhaps see the past more clearly.

Dating Exhibit

Natural Proxies
Tree ring data (dendrochronology) can yield information on seasonal temperature and wet or dry conditions. At best, tree rings are comparable to instrumental averages. However, suitable tree species are limited to parts of the temperate latitudes, and many trees need to be sampled and carefully assessed for good results. Even so, tree ring records are only useful for studying regional climates.

Global Warming in a Nutshell Part 3 of 4 - Proxy Measurements of Climate Data

 

[Wry Catcher]

A definition is a formal statement of the meaning or signifigance of a word or term.

An axiom is a proposition assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences which follow from it

A theorem is a theoretical propostion, statement or formula embodying something to be proved, devolped from axioms, statements or formulas.

A proof is a sequence of steps, statements or demonstrations that lead to a valid conclusion.

A pile of bull shit is an opinion offered on this issue (thread) unless it is framed as something less than a proof. BUT, there is plenty of evidence to support a theorem that global warming exists and man has had (at least) a part in the change.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A definition is a formal statement of the meaning or signifigance of a word or term.

An axiom is a proposition assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences which follow from it

A theorem is a theoretical propostion, statement or formula embodying something to be proved, devolped from axioms, statements or formulas.

A proof is a sequence of steps, statements or demonstrations that lead to a valid conclusion.

A pile of bull shit is an opinion offered on this issue (thread) unless it is framed as something less than a proof. BUT, there is plenty of evidence to support a theorem that global warming exists and man has had (at least) a part in the change.

What? No more piles of bull shit?. Is that because there is no evidence to suggest a conclusion that human activity does not contribute to climate change? Or is it because those of you so adament human activity is not a cause simply can't explain why you believe what you believe?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah Oh, someone is actually using logic, common sense and science to discuss the climate change hoax...



Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

Fucking garbage for the mentally lazy.

Yes, climate change is natural. When the levels of GHGs reachs a certain point, the laws of physics take over, and there is major climate change. It has happened several times in the past, and will happen again in the near future.

The laws of physics care not one whit whether the GHGs are the result of flood basalts on clathrates, or the result of a suicidal specie burning fossil fuels.

 

[Oddball]

"Proxy data" doesn't count for the Medieval warming period, but it does when warmist hacks like Michael Mann use tree rings to "prove" their case.

Man, are we wearing out the goalpoast moving crew today or what?!?!

Have you got a better way of proving what happened that long ago? Those rings, by the way, varied from place to place all over the globe using the same tree species. Therefore, it really can't be considered a "global" warming.

Completely beside the point of edthlemming cherry picking what data is acceptable to him at any given moment in time.

 

[edthecynic]

"Proxy data" doesn't count for the Medieval warming period, but it does when warmist hacks like Michael Mann use tree rings to "prove" their case.

Man, are we wearing out the goalpoast moving crew today or what?!?!

Have you got a better way of proving what happened that long ago? Those rings, by the way, varied from place to place all over the globe using the same tree species. Therefore, it really can't be considered a "global" warming.

Completely beside the point of edthlemming cherry picking what data is acceptable to him at any given moment in time.

You just can't stop yourself from lying or projecting.

You rejected surface temps, you rejected RSS Troposphere temps, you rejected UAH corrected Troposphere temps, all of which I accept. You only use the USA temps as the GLOBAL temps which any honest person would reject.

So again I ask, what will it take to get you to stop lying????????????????????????????????

 

[jeffrockit]

There are MANY reasons things are warming, man is one of them.

Why cant you guys figure this science out?

This has gotten to be such a stupid political football, I doubt the naysayers who post on message boards even remember that NO ONE advocates that it's ONLY 'man' creating global warming, but that man contributes to it.

When it comes right down to why it's political, if some right winger had written "An Inconvenient Truth," they would be forming tea parties to support the science that irrefutably concludes man's contribution. But since it was Al Gore who wrote the book, it's just gotta be bad. End of story. Brilliant, eh?

Does not matter who wrote it as it has been proven to have several factual errors which are yet to be corrected. What it will turn out to be is the biggest redistribution of wealth from the USA to every third world country that can get in on it. Even then, most of the money will wind up in the hands of these corrupt dictators and have almost no impact on the environment. It is a way to completely change the economy of the US because we are such an evil capitalistic country.

 

[jeffrockit]

How many BILLIONS of years has the earth been here with many, many climate changes, and we have the arrogance to think that we are changing it. It will be here long after we are all gone as it was before man.

 

[jeffrockit]

Would have been nice had they NOT have thrown out the raw data they based their findings on.

Whatever would have made them do such a thing I wonder...

There might have been rooms full of it and they thought once put to computerized archives, that would be the end of it. I'm sure scientists with several degrees and Ph.D's never thought they'd need to come up against a bunch of yahoos denying their hard work. If this conflict had been solely among the scientists who have what they believe a proven theory, and those who think there is more to it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But these days, everything has to have sides taken among the general public. How dumb is that? Let the SCIENTISTS do their job. Their minds are greater than anyone's found here, that's for damned sure.

How dumb is it to just "let the SCIENTISTS do their job, as we now find that some have been manipulating the data. You may be ok to just believe what you are told but with something that will have the ability to change the entire economy of the USA, I will continue to follow it.