Is climate change a "contentious" issue ? Really ?

[Grumblenuts]

Every scientific principle is valid only as long as it supports all the available data and observations. The scope of our data and observations grow constantly.

Which has only increased the massive scientific consensus long supporting AGW or "Climate Change" tyvm!
Unlike the piddling support AGW denialists such as yourself continue to enjoy among climate related scientists. In"valid"ate yourself much? <That's rhetorical. (Don't answer it).

 

[Grumblenuts]

Dear me. It is only contentious amongst oil company executives and the gullible drones that parrot their fake science.

Climate Change is a Liberal Plot to piss off Republicans

LOL. Fossil fuel "conservatives" actually, though keeping it in the ground would obviously be the conservative approach. Shameless hypocrites. Put it that way.

 

[ReinyDays]

Another counterpoint free reply, still no counter to the main point either.
Come on you can't be that stupid?

I recognize temperature change data on the face of it ... what you posted is anomaly data, just recognized on the face of it ... data types I've been dealing with for decades ...

Your citation is considered unreliable ... their citation doesn't back what they claim ... the reference chain is broken ...

You know better than to call me stupid ... I suggest apologizing ...

 

[mamooth]

you keep ignoring the NOAA and Hadcrut4 data:

No, I keep pointing out that you're lying about what that data means. In response, you do the "NANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" thing.

You ignored post 102 again. the monthly rise of CO2 doesn't match with the monthly temperature changes.

By "ignored", you seem to mean "directly addressed and refuted multiple times." Your dishonesty and cowardice got tedious a long time ago.

For the fourth time ...

Why do you say that year-by-year temperature change should be the same?

What are "Multiple periodicities of temperature change", and why do they matter?

 

[ReinyDays]

In response, you do the "NANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" thing.

Don't forget that "stomping of the foot" thing he does ...

 

[BS Filter]

 

[ding]

Dear me. It is only contentious amongst oil company executives and the gullible drones that parrot their fake science.

Can you tell me where CO2 emissions are increasing and what your solution is to stop that?

Because if you can't, then maybe you are the parrot.

 

[ding]

Some of the things that are contentious are:

The exact mechanism that causes climate to change. That is contentious.

That is utter nonsense. The very nearly unanimous opinion of active climate scientists is that the global warming of the last 150 years is being caused by the greenhouse effect acting on excess CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. You knew that was a fact several years ago, you just seem to lack the honesty to admit it.

So being in an interglacial cycle has nothing to do with the planet warming?

You know... if we were outside of the normal range of temperatures for an interglacial cycle, you might actually have an argument.

 

[ding]

Every scientific principle is valid only as long as it supports all the available data and observations. The scope of our data and observations grow constantly.

Which has only increased the massive scientific consensus long supporting AGW or "Climate Change" tyvm!
Unlike the piddling support AGW denialists such as yourself continue to enjoy among climate related scientists. In"valid"ate yourself much? <That's rhetorical. (Don't answer it).

Run away.

 

[mamooth]

So being in an interglacial cycle has nothing to do with the planet warming?

Nope. Natural factors are trying to make the planet cool now. Since the slow cooling of the past 6000-8000 years suddenly turned into fast warming, we know that's not part of any natural cycle, and that humans are the cause.

This is basic stuff. If you don't know it, you have no business bothering the grownups.

 

[fncceo]

Since the slow cooling of the past 6000-8000 years

8,000 years ago, when much of Europe and North America looked like this?

 

[Flash]

Liberals don't know any more about Climate Science than they do about History, Economics, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

 

[ding]

So being in an interglacial cycle has nothing to do with the planet warming?

Nope. Natural factors are trying to make the planet cool now. Since the slow cooling of the past 6000-8000 years suddenly turned into fast warming, we know that's not part of any natural cycle, and that humans are the cause.

This is basic stuff. If you don't know it, you have no business bothering the grownups.

We are still below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles, dear. We never got above them.

But if you are arguing we were heading for a glacial cycle and CO2 saved us from that, that's a great argument you are making.

 

[ding]

I bet she didn't see that coming.

 

[ding]

Even Stevie Wonder saw that coming.

 

[ding]

Don't forget this guy...

 

[mamooth]

We are still below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles, dear. We never got above them.

And how is that relevant to the fact that humans are causing the fast warming now, fast warming that will continue?

But if you are arguing we were heading for a glacial cycle and CO2 saved us from that, that's a great argument you are making.

Great idea. Overheat the earth now to stop the ice age in 20,000 years. You're essentially arguming that you need to run the furnace full blast staring in July because winter is eventually coming. That's some special kind of stupid.

 

[mamooth]

8,000 years ago, when much of Europe and North America looked like this?

So, you're telilng us you have no idea when the last "ice age" was. Got it.

I'll give you a hint. It ended 11,000 - 12,000 years ago. Ice ages are followed by a very rapid warmup, then a slow cooldown into the next ice ago. The rapid warmup ended 6,000 - 8,000 years ago.

 

[ding]

We are still below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles, dear. We never got above them.

And how is that relevant to the fact that humans are causing the fast warming now, fast warming that will continue?

But if you are arguing we were heading for a glacial cycle and CO2 saved us from that, that's a great argument you are making.

Great idea. Overheat the earth now to stop the ice age in 20,000 years. You're essentially arguming that you need to run the furnace full blast staring in July because winter is eventually coming. That's some special kind of stupid.

I dispute your claim that's how.

Actually 580 ppm is not going to overheat the planet. 580 ppm will keep the planet from entering a glacial period. That's a good thing.

 

[mamooth]

I dispute your claim that's how.

That's nice. Go on and dispute the round earth theory too. You'll be just as wrong. Your feelings do not change reality.

Actually 580 ppm is not going to overheat the planet. 580 ppm will keep the planet from entering a glacial period. That's a good thing.

And again with your "We have to turn the furnace up to full blast in July!" stupidity. I hope you have someone else taking care of you, to stop you from making such bad choices.