TWO more Global Warming issues

[Treeshepherd]

For right wingers to deny what a whopping 97% of the scientific community is stating...and opt, instead, to firmly believe the remaining 3%

One good thing about being a climate skeptic is that it encourages you to investigate claims.

I encourage you to investigate the methods of John Cook's survey which led to this 97% figure.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You clearly miss the point.

No, we're well aware all deniers deliberately ignore any data that contradicts their religious teachings. That's why they're called deniers.

As I said: Mindless zealots like you -- your blind faith will not be shaken.
Please - continue to prove the ppoint.

 

[mamooth]

Take your "the sky is falling" and stick it. NO measurable warming for over 17 years,doofus

Only the most desperate cultists still cling to a lie that crazy. Especially after 2014 was the record hot year, and as 2015 is shaping up to be even hotter.

Oh, this is where you now pull your final retreat to "ALL THE DATA IS FAKED!". All conspiracy cultists get there eventually. Some of the people here have already staked out a conspiracy fortress there, so you'll have good company.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you have information to the contrary?

You want me to show....

Information to the contrary of what was posted.
Can you?

Can you show that the information is not illustrative of the point made with it?

Here's temps since the last ice age....

Not sure how you think this invalidates the example, especially without any any sort of key or ledger explaining the information.

 

[mamooth]

Anyway, the planet has been warming for 400 years.

Not really. In any case, the recent warming is much bigger and faster than what happened after the little ice age.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Only the most desperate cultists still cling to a lie that crazy. Especially after 2014 was the record hot year, and as 2015 is shaping up to be even hotter.

Heh.
Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

(BTW, the powers that be have previously decided to move other threads on this VERY important issue to other forums....as if this issue is not "political"...)

Anyway, there are 2 important sub-issues on global warming that are seldom adequately debated....

The first is that most right wingers "think" that global warming is a farce precipitated on us...a farce that would have drastic economic consequences....as if there are not many, many jobs that would be created by curbing the pollutants that we spew all over our planet's environment...........What is often stated by these folks is that global warming is a repetitious trend and that it has happened over the billions of years of earth's existence. Even IF this were true.....what these nitwits fail to recognize is that MAN is now populating the planet and that whatever may have happenend in the millenia prior to man's existence does NOT matter....what matters is that man is heading to exstinction if nothing is done.....

The second issue is how climate change will have drastic impact on new wars and struggles throughout our planet....Weather DOES impact on wars...from D-Day landings to when and where we would drop our bombs on Japan.

The fact remains that, for example, as the Sahara desert grows, hundred of thousands of people will try to migrate to where life can be supported and if anyone tries to stop such migration, wars erupt. We should remember that the civil war that is currently raging in Syria was ALSO prompted by their drought situation.

Obma is correct.....global warming, if left unchecked, will be a main cause for many more world-wide struggles.

I know, they said that 30 years ago... yet he we sit, no evidence of AGW, and rubes like still shit your frilly panties over something that time and time again is demonstrated doesn't even exist.

Thanks to dopes like you scam artists like Al Gore are zillionaires.

 

[OKTexas]

Sassy here helpfully illustrates a common denier fraud tactic. She took a single temperature located at the top of a Greenland ice sheet, and tries to imply it's the temperature of the whole planet. It's fraud-by-cherrypicking.

And it's a staple denier tactic. Cultists, having no principles other than "The ends always justify the means for my cult!", will auto-justify any dishonesty as being acceptable in the service of the "greater good".

Sassy here helpfully illustrates a common denier fraud tactic. She took a single temperature located at the top of a Greenland ice sheet, and tries to imply it's the temperature of the whole planet. It's fraud-by-cherrypicking.

And it's a staple denier tactic. Cultists, having no principles other than "The ends always justify the means for my cult!", will auto-justify any dishonesty as being acceptable in the service of the "greater good".

Liberals projecting are great entertainment, keep up the good work. We need more smiles in our lives.

 

[mamooth]

Information to the contrary of what was posted.
Can you?

I don't have to show it's invalid to claim a single location represents the temperature average of the whole world. I just have to point out that it's absurd to claim a single point represents the temperature average of the whole world.

Can you show that the information is not illustrative of the point made with it?

I believe I just did.

Not sure how you think this invalidates the example, especially without any any sort of key or ledger explaining the information.

It shows the global temperature average as measured by various different proxies. Global average temperature is very different from temperatures at that single point on the Greenland Ice sheet, and thus it invalidates the example.

In any case, would you not agree that if the topic is global average temperature, a graph of global average temperature should be used in preference to a graph of a single location?

I could cherrypick single locations to show even more severe warming. I didn't. Because cherrypicking is bogus.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Anyway, the planet has been warming for 400 years.

Not really. In any case, the recent warming is much bigger and faster than what happened after the little ice age.

Your graph's red line shows that the warming began around 1590. The powder blue one shows dramatic warming kicked in around 1380. The navy blue one shows a spike around 1600 followed by a dip and then another spike around 1840 when less than a billion people were burning (I'm guessing ) less than a 20th of today's carbon emissions. What all of the colored lines taken together show is that we really don't know with any degree of certainty what happened before the era of modern instrumentation.

Then, of course, today we have revisionist graphs like Michael Mann's hockey stick which try to change the whole story to make things line up perfectly with the Industrial Revolution.

 

[Coyote]

Folks, thread has been cleaned of violations - posts must include some content related to the topic in addition to any flames. Discuss the topic please.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Information to the contrary of what was posted.
Can you?

I don't have to show it's invalid...

So, you admit that you cannot show the information is incorrect. Thank you.
That being the case, why do you dismiss it?

Not sure how you think this invalidates the example, especially without any any sort of key or ledger explaining the information.

It shows the global temperature average as measured by various different proxies. Global average temperature is very different from temperatures at that single point on the Greenland Ice sheet, and thus it invalidates the example.

Ah.
Why don't you provide an expanded source that more clearly describes this as your chart is just a bunch of wavy colored lines with no context..

 

[mamooth]

As I said: Mindless zealots like you -- your blind faith will not be shaken.
Please - continue to prove the ppoint.

This is why it's so pointless to debate deniers. They are not intellectually honest people, and do not seem capable of debating in good faith.

Let's emphasize the part you made such an effort to ignore.
---
The global temperature has been slowly cooling for the past 5,000 years, and would have slowly cooled for at least the next 20,000 years. That's the natural cycle. Instead, the earth suddenly started warming, in direct opposition to the natural cycles.

On top of that, we directly measure the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation. There are no natural explanations for that directly measured data, hence it is considered a smoking gun for global warming theory. Human-caused global warming theory is the only theory that explains all of the observed data, hence it is the accepted theory. If you have a different theory that explains all of the observed data, present it. You'll be the first to do so, and will be able to collect your Nobel prize.
---

Care to comment, or will you just run again?

 

[Treeshepherd]

The global temperature has been slowly cooling for the past 5,000 years, and would have slowly cooled for at least the next 20,000 years.

You say that as if it were a fact.

 

[mamooth]

So, you admit that you cannot show the information is incorrect. Thank you.

Yep. It's correct for one spot on Greenland. Congratulations, you've proven what I keep saying.

That being the case, why do you dismiss it?

I didn't dismiss it. I just pointed out that one spot in Greenland is not representative of the globe, and that it's dishonest to pretend it is.

That's not rocket science. Why are you having so much trouble with it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I said: Mindless zealots like you -- your blind faith will not be shaken.
Please - continue to prove the ppoint.

This is why it's so pointless to debate deniers. They are not intellectually honest people, and do not seem capable of debating in good faith.

Ironic statement, coming from a zealot whose faith shall not be shaken.
Tell me: What's the penalty for AGW apostasy?

The global temperature has been slowly cooling for the past 5,000 years, and would have slowly cooled for at least the next 20,000 years.

Show that to be true.

That's the natural cycle. Instead, the earth suddenly started warming, in direct opposition to the natural cycles.

A question not asked by AGW zealots:
How do you know that the "natural cycle" did not begin a natural reversal?

 

[mamooth]

You say that as if it were a fact.

If you think this ice age cycle would have been completely different from all the preceding ice age cycles, please give us your reasoning.

M14, feel free to answer as well.

Needless to say, "How do you know the laws of physics won't reverse themselves?" is not regarded as a very compelling argument in the scientific community.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, you admit that you cannot show the information is incorrect. Thank you.

Yep. It's correct for one spot on Greenland. Congratulations, you've proven what I keep saying.

You have not once said that the information is accurate.
But, now that you admit that is it accurate...
Please explain the discrepancy on the information you admit is accurate and the information you claims shows a different picture.
Is the Greenland ice sheet somehow removed from the global picture?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You say that as if it were a fact.

If you think this ice age cycle would have been completely different from all the preceding ice age cycles, please give us your reasoning.

Translation:
You know cannot support your claim that the globe would have continued cooling for at least another 20,000 years with anything but inference and induction.

This, of course, undermines your position that the earth has not naturally reversed its trend and is not (slightly, if at all) warming on its own.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are all the right wingers on this forum 12 years old?

A normal human, when given the choice between "there's a global socialist plot against me" and "Maybe I messed up", will choose the latter. However, deniers are very different from normal people. Denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now, so they actually will rant at length about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot against them.

So, don't waste your time trying to sway deniers with logic. They weren't reasoned into their positions, so they can't be reasoned out of their positions.

If you want to change the mind of a denier, you have to think like a denier. They are purely emotion-driven creatures, so you have to play to their emotions. Give them a virtual treat every time they wander towards a thought that isn't completely crazy. When they make a virtual mess, give them a scolding and rub their nose in it. Train them like a puppy, but understand they're much bigger and less intelligent, so that training them to behave will be both mentally and physically exhausting.

1. Denier is an AGWCult secret handshake word it's how you announce your cult membership.

2. No real scientists use the words denier or consensus

3. How much must we lower CO2 in order to turn the Sahara into lush greenery. Please resist your genetic predisposition to insult and deflect