Make Up Yer Minds, You Warmists

[daveman]

We only have about 150 years of direct instrument measurement data. Any data for longer periods comes from PROXY data, and proxy data is less accurate and limited in its global scope. But you knew that already. Deniers depend on the least accurate data for their beliefs.

Ummm...AGW depends on proxy data. You know, the same proxy data you say are less accurate and limited in scope.

 

[edthecynic]

Deep core samples. Try learning about them. The GHG's have been going up and down since the beginning of time. I have no reason to believe the earths natural process will change now.

And before you get your panties in a bunch and start screaming its MAN who is making the GHG's elevate, that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of the earth. It has happened in the past, it will happen now, and it will happen in the future. The earth has been in the warm phase, a phase where it is very good for humans, it is time to change one way or the other, cold or hot. Either way...

Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot

Except that's the way the cycle SHOULD be, not the way it has been for the last 100 years or so!!!

It's been:

Hot
Warm
FLAT
Warm
Hot

We have not had a COLD phase in the last few cycles. After each warning trend the temperature leveled off at the higher level before rising again in the next warming trend. Each new warming trend began about where the previous warming trend left off.

I guess you forgot the early 1970's when the "consensus" of the time was a upcoming Ice Age?

Newsweek on the cooling world

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ominous.pdf

Another Ice Age? -- Printout -- TIME

There are several dozen more I can post if you need your memory jolted further.

My memory seems to be a lot better than yours!
Global cooling was the "consensus" of only a very small minority of deniers who were just as wrong then as they are now. The majority of real scientists predicted global warming back in the 70s and time has proven them correct and your deniers wrong.

 

[konradv]

Except that's the way the cycle SHOULD be, not the way it has been for the last 100 years or so!!!

It's been:

Hot
Warm
FLAT
Warm
Hot

We have not had a COLD phase in the last few cycles. After each warning trend the temperature leveled off at the higher level before rising again in the next warming trend. Each new warming trend began about where the previous warming trend left off.

I guess you forgot the early 1970's when the "consensus" of the time was a upcoming Ice Age?

Newsweek on the cooling world

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ominous.pdf

Another Ice Age? -- Printout -- TIME

There are several dozen more I can post if you need your memory jolted further.

My memory seems to be a lot better than yours!
Global cooling was the "consensus" of only a very small minority of deniers who were just as wrong then as they are now. The majority of real scientists predicted global warming back in the 70s and time has proven them correct and your deniers wrong.

LOL!!! It's amazing how deniers will keep bringing this up, while still claiming to be "real" scientists. A REAL scientist would look at that and say, if that's true, what made them change their minds so fast? Some say funding, but the theory has to proceed the funding, NOT the other way around. Again, another example of how some will give their opinions on scientists without knowing how things really operate.

 

[Big Fitz]

Except that's the way the cycle SHOULD be, not the way it has been for the last 100 years or so!!!

It's been:

Hot
Warm
FLAT
Warm
Hot

We have not had a COLD phase in the last few cycles. After each warning trend the temperature leveled off at the higher level before rising again in the next warming trend. Each new warming trend began about where the previous warming trend left off.

I guess you forgot the early 1970's when the "consensus" of the time was a upcoming Ice Age?

Newsweek on the cooling world

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ominous.pdf

Another Ice Age? -- Printout -- TIME

There are several dozen more I can post if you need your memory jolted further.

My memory seems to be a lot better than yours!
Global cooling was the "consensus" of only a very small minority of deniers who were just as wrong then as they are now. The majority of real scientists predicted global warming back in the 70s and time has proven them correct and your deniers wrong.

Wow.. talk about "editing" history to fit your current view!

 

[edthecynic]

We only have about 150 years of direct instrument measurement data. Any data for longer periods comes from PROXY data, and proxy data is less accurate and limited in its global scope. But you knew that already. Deniers depend on the least accurate data for their beliefs.

Ummm...AGW depends on proxy data. You know, the same proxy data you say are less accurate and limited in scope.

AWG maintains that since the Industrial Revolution global temps have been rising. This data is within the direct instrument measurement data record. Proxy data is not needed.

 

[edthecynic]

I guess you forgot the early 1970's when the "consensus" of the time was a upcoming Ice Age?

Newsweek on the cooling world

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ominous.pdf

Another Ice Age? -- Printout -- TIME

There are several dozen more I can post if you need your memory jolted further.

My memory seems to be a lot better than yours!
Global cooling was the "consensus" of only a very small minority of deniers who were just as wrong then as they are now. The majority of real scientists predicted global warming back in the 70s and time has proven them correct and your deniers wrong.

Wow.. talk about "editing" history to fit your current view!

Would you like to put some money on it?

The vast majority of scientific papers from the period predicted global warming. There were less than ten papers predicting global cooling. Only deniers would call less than ten a "consensus."

 

[konradv]

My memory seems to be a lot better than yours!
Global cooling was the "consensus" of only a very small minority of deniers who were just as wrong then as they are now. The majority of real scientists predicted global warming back in the 70s and time has proven them correct and your deniers wrong.

Wow.. talk about "editing" history to fit your current view!

Would you like to put some money on it?

The vast majority of scientific papers from the period predicted global warming. There were less than ten papers predicting global cooling. Only deniers would call less than ten a "consensus."

Wow... I can't believe Big Fitz can expect us to believe anything he says without at least citing a source. Is it because their isn't one and he's really the one "editing" history? Hmmmmmmmmm..., I guess we'll never know unless he does his homework and shows us the goods. Hard to do when they don't exist, eh Fitz?

 

[daveman]

My memory seems to be a lot better than yours!
Global cooling was the "consensus" of only a very small minority of deniers who were just as wrong then as they are now. The majority of real scientists predicted global warming back in the 70s and time has proven them correct and your deniers wrong.

Then you shouldn't have any problem providing articles from "real scientists" predicting global warming.

 

[daveman]

We only have about 150 years of direct instrument measurement data. Any data for longer periods comes from PROXY data, and proxy data is less accurate and limited in its global scope. But you knew that already. Deniers depend on the least accurate data for their beliefs.

Ummm...AGW depends on proxy data. You know, the same proxy data you say are less accurate and limited in scope.

AWG maintains that since the Industrial Revolution global temps have been rising. This data is within the direct instrument measurement data record. Proxy data is not needed.

Then they have no baseline for comparison, do they?

Isn't that a pretty poor way to conduct science?

 

[daveman]

My memory seems to be a lot better than yours!
Global cooling was the "consensus" of only a very small minority of deniers who were just as wrong then as they are now. The majority of real scientists predicted global warming back in the 70s and time has proven them correct and your deniers wrong.

Wow.. talk about "editing" history to fit your current view!

Would you like to put some money on it?

The vast majority of scientific papers from the period predicted global warming. There were less than ten papers predicting global cooling. Only deniers would call less than ten a "consensus."

Then let's see some.

 

[westwall]

Except that's the way the cycle SHOULD be, not the way it has been for the last 100 years or so!!!

It's been:

Hot
Warm
FLAT
Warm
Hot

We have not had a COLD phase in the last few cycles. After each warning trend the temperature leveled off at the higher level before rising again in the next warming trend. Each new warming trend began about where the previous warming trend left off.

I guess you forgot the early 1970's when the "consensus" of the time was a upcoming Ice Age?

Newsweek on the cooling world

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ominous.pdf

Another Ice Age? -- Printout -- TIME

There are several dozen more I can post if you need your memory jolted further.

My memory seems to be a lot better than yours!
Global cooling was the "consensus" of only a very small minority of deniers who were just as wrong then as they are now. The majority of real scientists predicted global warming back in the 70s and time has proven them correct and your deniers wrong.

You are so full of poo I am surprised you can see! I dare you to find a single article from the 1970's that says we are headed for global warming....just one.

 

[westwall]

I guess you forgot the early 1970's when the "consensus" of the time was a upcoming Ice Age?

Newsweek on the cooling world

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ominous.pdf

Another Ice Age? -- Printout -- TIME

There are several dozen more I can post if you need your memory jolted further.

My memory seems to be a lot better than yours!
Global cooling was the "consensus" of only a very small minority of deniers who were just as wrong then as they are now. The majority of real scientists predicted global warming back in the 70s and time has proven them correct and your deniers wrong.

LOL!!! It's amazing how deniers will keep bringing this up, while still claiming to be "real" scientists. A REAL scientist would look at that and say, if that's true, what made them change their minds so fast? Some say funding, but the theory has to proceed the funding, NOT the other way around. Again, another example of how some will give their opinions on scientists without knowing how things really operate.

I'll issue the same challenge, find a single article from the 1970's that claims GW is imminent. Just one. C'mon konrad put up or shut up.

 

[westwall]

We only have about 150 years of direct instrument measurement data. Any data for longer periods comes from PROXY data, and proxy data is less accurate and limited in its global scope. But you knew that already. Deniers depend on the least accurate data for their beliefs.

Ummm...AGW depends on proxy data. You know, the same proxy data you say are less accurate and limited in scope.

AWG maintains that since the Industrial Revolution global temps have been rising. This data is within the direct instrument measurement data record. Proxy data is not needed.

Yeah imagine that, the world suddenly jumps out ot the Little Ice Age too in 1850. Remember boys, correlation does not equal causation!

 

[westwall]

My memory seems to be a lot better than yours!
Global cooling was the "consensus" of only a very small minority of deniers who were just as wrong then as they are now. The majority of real scientists predicted global warming back in the 70s and time has proven them correct and your deniers wrong.

Wow.. talk about "editing" history to fit your current view!

Would you like to put some money on it?

The vast majority of scientific papers from the period predicted global warming. There were less than ten papers predicting global cooling. Only deniers would call less than ten a "consensus."

Meet the challenge.

 

[edthecynic]

Wow.. talk about "editing" history to fit your current view!

Would you like to put some money on it?

The vast majority of scientific papers from the period predicted global warming. There were less than ten papers predicting global cooling. Only deniers would call less than ten a "consensus."

Then let's see some.

Wow.. talk about "editing" history to fit your current view!

Would you like to put some money on it?

The vast majority of scientific papers from the period predicted global warming. There were less than ten papers predicting global cooling. Only deniers would call less than ten a "consensus."

Meet the challenge.

I see no money, therefore I see no challenge. Talk is cheap, you can always tell when CON$ know they are lying because they will never warranty their lies with money, not even a token amount like say $20.00.
We can settle up with PayPal.

The fact remains, the majority of per reviewed scientific papers in the period, over 40, predicted global warming and only 7 predicted global cooling.

 

[westwall]

Would you like to put some money on it?

The vast majority of scientific papers from the period predicted global warming. There were less than ten papers predicting global cooling. Only deniers would call less than ten a "consensus."

Then let's see some.

Would you like to put some money on it?

The vast majority of scientific papers from the period predicted global warming. There were less than ten papers predicting global cooling. Only deniers would call less than ten a "consensus."

Meet the challenge.

I see no money, therefore I see no challenge. Talk is cheap, you can always tell when CON$ know they are lying because they will never warranty their lies with money, not even a token amount like say $20.00.
We can settle up with PayPal.

The fact remains, the majority of per reviewed scientific papers in the period, over 40, predicted global warming and only 7 predicted global cooling.

Couldn't do it could you? That master of internet search olfraud couldn't do it either, he had to go all the way to the 1950's to find an article about warming. You're just as big a tool as he is. You make a bold statement and when push comes to shove you tuck tale and run. Piss off. Or present one paper that claimed there was global warming coming, because clearly finding an article is out of the question...we're waiting...

 

[edthecynic]

Then let's see some.

Meet the challenge.

I see no money, therefore I see no challenge. Talk is cheap, you can always tell when CON$ know they are lying because they will never warranty their lies with money, not even a token amount like say $20.00.
We can settle up with PayPal.

The fact remains, the majority of per reviewed scientific papers in the period, over 40, predicted global warming and only 7 predicted global cooling.

Couldn't do it could you? That master of internet search olfraud couldn't do it either, he had to go all the way to the 1950's to find an article about warming. You're just as big a tool as he is. You make a bold statement and when push comes to shove you tuck tale and run. Piss off. Or present one paper that claimed there was global warming coming, because clearly finding an article is out of the question...we're waiting...

Like I said, you can always tell when CON$ KNOW they are LYING, they will NEVER warranty their LIES with even a token amount of money. You CON$ are soooooo predictable.

How about $10.00, are the beliefs of a CON$ervative worth $10.00?

 

[Douger]

pura Vida

 

[westwall]

I see no money, therefore I see no challenge. Talk is cheap, you can always tell when CON$ know they are lying because they will never warranty their lies with money, not even a token amount like say $20.00.
We can settle up with PayPal.

The fact remains, the majority of per reviewed scientific papers in the period, over 40, predicted global warming and only 7 predicted global cooling.

Couldn't do it could you? That master of internet search olfraud couldn't do it either, he had to go all the way to the 1950's to find an article about warming. You're just as big a tool as he is. You make a bold statement and when push comes to shove you tuck tale and run. Piss off. Or present one paper that claimed there was global warming coming, because clearly finding an article is out of the question...we're waiting...

Like I said, you can always tell when CON$ KNOW they are LYING, they will NEVER warranty their LIES with even a token amount of money. You CON$ are soooooo predictable.

How about $10.00, are the beliefs of a CON$ervative worth $10.00?

You are not helping your cause one iota. No one will bet to something where a requirement is they divulge even the slightest bit of info to a person like you. There are many here I would have no problem divulging my identity to, but you HAH!

So put up or shut up.

 

[edthecynic]

Couldn't do it could you? That master of internet search olfraud couldn't do it either, he had to go all the way to the 1950's to find an article about warming. You're just as big a tool as he is. You make a bold statement and when push comes to shove you tuck tale and run. Piss off. Or present one paper that claimed there was global warming coming, because clearly finding an article is out of the question...we're waiting...

Like I said, you can always tell when CON$ KNOW they are LYING, they will NEVER warranty their LIES with even a token amount of money. You CON$ are soooooo predictable.

How about $10.00, are the beliefs of a CON$ervative worth $10.00?

You are not helping your cause one iota. No one will bet to something where a requirement is they divulge even the slightest bit of info to a person like you. There are many here I would have no problem divulging my identity to, but you HAH!

So put up or shut up.

That's a load of crap and you know it! You could set up a PayPal account with the same screen name you use here and I would have no more clue to your ID than I have now.

The real reason you won't put up money against me is this "consensus" lie has been thoroughly debunked even in the popular media like USA Today, not just the environmental web sites, so even you CON$ know it is bullshit.

So put some money where your CON$ervative bullshit is.
How about $5.00? Is the crap you swallow every day from your CON$ervative sources worth even $5.00?????