Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[Si modo]

"Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:"

Exactly what those persons you call "deniers" say.

Get a grip. You are making a fool of yourself.

But, more importantly: you clearly have no idea what science even is and you soil science with your politics.

No. That is not what deniers say. Deniers say that human caused global warming is a myth, or a hoax. They are factually wrong, and they are operating from a faith based perspective.

Please show us then, all the empirical data to support your claim. No computer models are allowed. Only empirical data.

I also asked that before.

The poster linked to blog and opinion.

I suppose that's science to that poster.

 

[SAT]

I linked to the EPA. Not to opinion.

What's Known Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."

The data shows that the world is warmer.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

 

[Si modo]

I linked to the EPA. Not to opinion.

The EPA site is not science.

FYI.

 

[SAT]

The EPA site is not an opinion blog.

 

[Oddball]

I linked to the EPA. Not to opinion.

I linked to a mainstream source where Muller's (the fraud who is the topic of the thread) colleague accused him of lying.

And all you can do is deflect, blow smoke and try desperately to change the subject.

 

[SAT]

I linked to the EPA. Not to opinion.

I linked to a mainstream source where Muller's (the fraud who is the topic of the thread) colleague accused him of lying.

And all you can do is deflect, blow smoke and try desperately to change the subject.

Yes, by posting a link to a graph of world temperatures, I'm changing the subject on the global warming thread.

 

[Oddball]

I posted links to not one but two UK newspapers, which told the story of the subject of the OP lying out his ass....All you've done is try to change the subject.

 

[SAT]

I posted links to not one but two UK newspapers, which told the story of the subject of the OP lying out his ass....All you've done is try to change the subject.

A post that explains a lot. You believe if you can attack one of the messengers, you can make the data go away.

Look at the graph. The world is warming. The climate is increasingly unstable. The North Pole is losing ice. This all relates to how the earth works. It's not magical. This is science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I posted links to not one but two UK newspapers, which told the story of the subject of the OP lying out his ass....All you've done is try to change the subject.

A post that explains a lot. You believe if you can attack one of the messengers, you can make the data go away.

Look at the graph. The world is warming. The climate is increasingly unstable. The North Pole is losing ice. This all relates to how the earth works. It's not magical. This is science.

The world is warming.

What percentage is caused by mankind?

 

[Oddball]

I posted links to not one but two UK newspapers, which told the story of the subject of the OP lying out his ass....All you've done is try to change the subject.

A post that explains a lot. You believe if you can attack one of the messengers, you can make the data go away.

Look at the graph. The world is warming. The climate is increasingly unstable. The North Pole is losing ice. This all relates to how the earth works. It's not magical. This is science.

The message is that the messengers are a pack of liars.

Too bad for you and the rest of the cargo cultists.

 

[SAT]

Look at the graph. You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with thermometers. Do you see how dumb that is?

 

[Oddball]

Look at the OP....You're still deflecting and blowing smoke.

 

[SAT]

I'm asking you to get away from attacks on the people involved and look at the data. Please look at the temperature graph.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

 

[Oddball]

And you've been asked to quantify how much of the warming is anthropogenic and how much is natural.

Don't fret if you can't, not even the IPPC/UCAR/NCAR/CRU liars can, either.

 

[SAT]

All I'm doing is asking you to look at something pertinent.

Look at the graph. The world is getting warmer. We agree on that, right?

 

[Si modo]

I'm asking you to get away from attacks on the people involved and look at the data. Please look at the temperature graph.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

You do realize that your graph does nothing to demstrate causation of warming, right?

Once again, where is the science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on warming?

Thar was and still is the question.

And, I asked for the science, not a blog, not someone's opinion, not a gvernment agency site - science.

Same queastIon, different day.

 

[Oddball]

All I'm doing is asking you to look at something pertinent.

Look at the graph. The world is getting warmer. We agree on that, right?

The graph points to neither causality nor quantification, deflectasaurus rex.

 

[westwall]

I linked to the EPA. Not to opinion.

What's Known Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."

The data shows that the world is warmer.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

The data also shows that the world began warming 14,000 years ago. I may be missing something, but I don't recall SUV's cruising around back then. The graph only tells you that the world is warming. We know that. The cause is what is being argued or is that beyond you?

So far, no data has been presented by the warmist camp, that shows man is responsible for the warming. Instead, the only empirical evidence we have counters their fundamental tenet (and yes I am using that term intentionally) that CO2 is the cause of the warming.

The best evidence for CO2 having no correlative responsibility for the warming is the Vostock ice core samples which show unequivocally that warming occurs first and then 800 or so years later the CO2 levels rise.

That means the current CO2 level rise we are witnessing can be just as reasonably attributed to that cause, as to any other cause put forth. It is after all around 800 years since the Medieval Warming Period and the temps were demonstrably higher globally then, then they are now.

To further put the nail into the coffin of CO2 being a temperature driver, those same ice cores show that during the Holocene Thermal Maximum of around 8,000 years ago the temperature warmed, hundreds of years afterwards the CO2 levels increased, then there followed 300 or so years of cooling, and the CO2 level remained elevated, then there was a further 300 year period of warmth followed by a further 300 year period of cooling, then the CO2 levles finally began to drop again after 1000 years of elevated levels.

So, you see, the very theory of AGW has been proven false. That single study (kindly provided by olfraud) refutes everything you have built your entire religion upon. And yes, yours is the faith based belief. Why else would your high priests engage in the persecution of "heresy" they proclaim?

It is your side that is attempting to squash dissent. It is your side who persecutes the "blasphemers of the "word". It is your side that has engaged in the wholesale denial of studies that counter the belief system they have instituted. You are the folks running the Inquisition now.

Thank you for making it so obvious.

 

[westwall]

All I'm doing is asking you to look at something pertinent.

Look at the graph. The world is getting warmer. We agree on that, right?

That was never the question. Can we agree on that?

 

[SAT]

One thing at a time. We agree that the world is getting warmer, right?