I'm really sorry you can't decipher what I am saying.
How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
- Thread starter abu afak
- Start date
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Try using normal words then ...
Try not playing games. Vainglory sucks.
That’s all I need to put your sorry ass down, dummy.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
According to the IPCC. the unquestioned authority on climate change, the future climate cannot be predicted using computer models. Said it 30 years ago.
IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dont shoot the messenger
IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dont shoot the messenger
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,362
- 12,942
- 2,400
According to the IPCC. the unquestioned authority on climate change, the future climate cannot be predicted using computer models. Said it 30 years ago.
IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dont shoot the messenger
It in my signature: "The climate system is a coupled non linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" --- IPCC
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
According to the IPCC. the unquestioned authority on climate change, the future climate cannot be predicted using computer models. Said it 30 years ago.
IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dont shoot the messenger
It in my signature: "The climate system is a coupled non linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" --- IPCC
That is the exact statement I am referring to....
....have posted it many times over the years. Completely ignored by the k00ks.fakery is ghey
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 8,056
- 2,785
- 315
- Thread starter
- #890
Quote Mining" (we see it alot by creationists to make it APPEAR people who believe in evolution don't do so)According to the IPCC. the unquestioned authority on climate change, the future climate cannot be predicted using computer models. Said it 30 years ago.
IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dont shoot the messenger
It in my signature: "The climate system is a coupled non linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" --- IPCC
Quoting out of context - Wikipedia
Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]...
- -- -- - - - -
Quote mining
Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...
Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote....
`
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
This issue needs to STOP getting politicized.
1. It makes ZERO sense to exempt China from mass reforms, as the world's biggest pollution generators, while penalizing the US and other economies to skew political control.
2. If people like liberals are motivated by these arguments, then you don't need to preach to the choir already convinced. Just invest in greener sustainable living, cooperative community development, energy and economy. And encourage others by example. No further debate needed.
3. For people NOT moved by these arguments: Just arguing for more cost effective sustainable self governing economy and production will make the same points about reducing pollution and emissions. The same solutions will reduce CO2 as well as other environmental damage.
No need to argue this particular angle, trying to "prove a global impact on climate."
Just agreeing on self sufficient means as more sustainable, healthy and cost effective for people and the planet leads to the same solutions.
Preserving clean air and water means stopping excess waste, emissions and consumption. Restoring forests, oceans and wildlife also means reducing unnatural consumption, destruction, and contamination of land from excess production.
4. Otherwise, if people arguing for these changes don't compel themselves or China to cut down on production and consumption, THAT is what people deny reject and object to. The politics behind this.
Get rid of that. Stick to conservative ideals of owning and taking care of land yourself. And promote equal responsibility for all people. Not just arguments and proposed solutions "politicized" to control SOME policies while attacking or punishing dissenters as part of the political strategy.
This detracts, demeans and discredits the real issue of environmental preservation where everyone can agree on clean air water and energy.
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 8,056
- 2,785
- 315
- Thread starter
- #892
Well apparently there is a need to "politicize"... by the vast MAJORITY of posters in this section and on this overwhelming Con-Clown message board as the great majority do NOT believe in AGW.
Check the thread starts here. Look at THAT 'climate.'
I am not politicizing the great CONSENSUS that exists on the topic.
The "Koch Heads" are.
I agree on China, but why pressure them if the ***holes on the "fake news" Right are in denial we are warming it.
Including our last President.
`
Last edited:
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
If you're correct, pressure the Chinese despite any deniers.
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Consider:
Last edited:
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 8,056
- 2,785
- 315
- Thread starter
- #895
Stryder50 said:
Consider this UNBIASED search you cherry/sht-picking ***hole.
How many dead on Trackers do you want?
co2 temperature - Google Search
www.google.com
`
Last edited:
I guess it's OK for people who live in shit hole 3rd world middle eastern countries (like you) to want the planet to be colder but people who live in the the first world shouldn't want that.
Stryder50
Platinum Member
My, aren't you the classic example of civility.
BTW, consider also pulling up your trousers, your brain is getting chilly~freezing.
Had you bothered to look through this link you present you'd notice a couple of things;
1) Some of those "cherry/sht-picking" charts/graphs I presented are on that search page list.
2) Most of those are also showing cherry picking of data slanted either way.
3) Many show what is more a case of coincidence rather than cause.
4) Many also show temperature increases preceded CO2 increases (could we then assume that it's more often temperature increases ~ allowing for more Life, flora and fauna ~ that results in CO2 increases ???)
NOTE that what I'm attempting to show in previous post is that on a planet that is 4+ BILLION years old, proper perspective of the atmospheric composition and temperature ranges over that time-span provide a better basis of information than some selectively stacked data representations only going back a century or two (100-200 years).
Now if you happen to be one of those loonies whom really buy$ into the $cam$ and $ham$ (follow the funding) of human-caused/anthropogenic Climate Change(ACC)/Global Warming(AGW) then show your strength of conviction and cease completely and 100% ALL Carbon Dioxide(CO2) emissions on your part, especially those respiratory exhalations you present.
BTW, your post provides so much material through that link, I may have to use it another time or two to provide further examples of the faulty non-science being used to drive ideological and political agendas.
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Actually, that remains a bit debatable. Per this chart, we may still be in an "inter-glacial"~'warm period', but as the chart shows, for the past half million years about 80-90 percent of the time spent in either trans-glacial (that 30-20 degree band) easing into or jumping out of the glacials=Ice Ages, or actually in a glacial=ice age.
Some of those warmer "inter-glacials" a bit short lived, about 5,000 years or so, and others a bit longer in the 20-40,000 years or so. At the present, we've been in one of about 12-15,000 years duration, depending when and whom is doing the counting. But we could easily be on the verge of a decline and sometimes the drop can happen within a life-time, century or so.
Climate Crash
Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change and What It Means …
As scientists carefully search for clues in the sun and…
Notice also that per this graph, three of the past four "inter-glacial" warm periods show temperatures that were higher~warmer than what the world is experiencing now.
However, your point is one for concern, as if we aren't careful and engage too much poorly conceived geo-engineering to counter the hypothesis of ACC/AGW we could trigger that sudden and rapid descent into another glaciation~ice age.
Last edited:
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Here's an interesting excerpt from one of the charts on the link you provided;
...
I report here that proxies for temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration are generally uncorrelated across the Phanerozoic climate, showing that atmospheric CO2 did not drive the ancient climate. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a less-direct measure of its effect on global temperature than marginal radiative forcing, however, which is nonetheless also generally uncorrelated with temperature across the Phanerozoic. The present findings from the Phanerozoic climate provide possible insights into the role of atmospheric CO2 in more recent glacial cycling and for contemporary climate science and carbon policies. Finally, I report that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 oscillated regularly during the Phanerozoic and peaks in CO2 concentration closely match the peaks of mass extinctions identified by previous investigators. This finding suggests an urgent need for research aimed at quantifying the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and past mass extinctions. I conclude that that limiting anthropogenic emissions of CO2 may not be helpful in preventing harmful global warming, but may be essential to conserving biodiversity.
...
...
The present findings corroborate the earlier conclusion based on study of the Paleozoic climate that “global climate may be independent of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.” [64] (p. 198). The present study shows further, however, that past atmospheric CO2 concentration oscillates on a cycle of 15–20 My and an amplitude of a few hundred to several hundreds of ppmv. A second longer cycle oscillates at 60–70 My. As discussed below, the peaks of the ~15 My cycles align closely with the times of identified mass extinctions during the Phanerozoic Eon, inviting further research on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and mass extinctions during the Phanerozoic.
...
The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years
Assessing human impacts on climate and biodiversity requires an understanding of the relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere and global temperature (T). Here I explore this relationship empirically using comprehensive, recently-compiled databases...
www.mdpi.com
Similar threads
