Welcome Alarmists. Did you know Earth is still in an ice age?

[Captain Caveman]

I think him speaking on this topic is precisely him being a fake climate scientists.

No, he had facts, not silly computer models.

 

[Crick]

No, he had facts, not silly computer models.

Do you think his statement that temperatures from areas lacking instrumentation were "made up" was a fact?
Do you think his claim that "most studies" are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario was a fact?
Do you think his claim that "most economists" feel addressing low emissions scenario warming is a waste of money was a fact?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Do you think his statement that temperatures from areas lacking instrumentation were "made up" was a fact?
Do you think his claim that "most studies" are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario was a fact?
Do you think his claim that "most economists" feel addressing low emissions scenario warming is a waste of money was a fact?

It was a factual video.

 

[Crick]

It was a factual video.

A great deal of what he put out was subjective opinion and everything else was scientifically irrelevant. His point that we're still in an ice age, the Holocene is a cooler interglacial, that modern thermometers were invented during the LIA, that temperature readings between instruments is made up, that CO2 has been higher for most of Earth's history, that less than 97% of climate scientists opt to characterize global warming with subjective, ill-defined terms, that climate models tend to be too warm all range from completely irrelevant to disingenuous deception.

The reason this was done by a historian is because a scientists wouldn't have spewed a con like this.

 

[Captain Caveman]

A great deal of what he put out was subjective opinion and everything else was scientifically irrelevant. His point that we're still in an ice age, the Holocene is a cooler interglacial, that modern thermometers were invented during the LIA, that temperature readings between instruments is made up, that CO2 has been higher for most of Earth's history, that less than 97% of climate scientists opt to characterize global warming with subjective, ill-defined terms, that climate models tend to be too warm all range from completely irrelevant to disingenuous deception.

The reason this was done by a historian is because a scientists wouldn't have spewed a con like this.

Facts, he put out facts.

 

[Crick]

Facts, he put out facts.

List a few. Explain their significance.

 

[Captain Caveman]

List a few. Explain their significance.

I can only do one sentence replies with you so I have to decline.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Crick if you're subjective, you will follow climate scientists, but if you're objective, you will follow scientists.

 

[Crick]

Crick if you're subjective, you will follow climate scientists, but if you're objective, you will follow scientists.

Climate scientsts are scientists and they know more about the climate than your average scientist.

 

[Crick]

I can only do one sentence replies with you so I have to decline.

Coward.

List one and explain its significance.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Climate scientists are scientists and they know more about the climate than your average scientist.

Obviously the content of the climate scientist thread didn't stay in your head.

 

[Crick]

Obviously the content of the climate scientist thread didn't stay in your head.

To what thread are you referring?

 

[Captain Caveman]

To what thread are you referring?

Listen, if you're gonna be a prick, just fuck off. I'm am not wasting my time with dickheads.

What is a climate scientist?

Every branch of science has many routes you can go down and specialise in. Geology is the study of the earth's topography, yet you can choose to specialise in different areas. Pardon the pun, what on earth is a climate scientist? Are they a scientist in meteorology, plate tectonics, erosion...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Captain Caveman]

Not watching your retarded video, but lets assume, just for shits and giggles, that your oil funded "scientist" is right, and we are in an ice-age.

What happens when it ends?

The start of the video shows a graph. The wavy line shows were the earth was above a certain temperature and below that certain temperature. Below the line, we have ice-ages, but much of the earths history has been above that line.

I remember reading that Antarctica used to be a temperate forest and that Scott was found dead carrying fossils. So I just looked up that link -

Antarctic Fossils | Expeditions

expeditions.fieldmuseum.org

So what caused climate change for Antarctica to become a temperate forest and what caused climate change for it to freeze back over? We weren't around then.

Why do you think the earth can't do what's it done before and go above that line in the graph?

 

[Crick]

The start of the video shows a graph. The wavy line shows were the earth was above a certain temperature and below that certain temperature. Below the line, we have ice-ages, but much of the earths history has been above that line.

I remember reading that Antarctica used to be a temperate forest and that Scott was found dead carrying fossils. So I just looked up that link -

Antarctic Fossils | Expeditions

expeditions.fieldmuseum.org

So what caused climate change for Antarctica to become a temperate forest and what caused climate change for it to freeze back over? We weren't around then.

Why do you think the earth can't do what's it done before and go above that line in the graph?

Why do you think non-anthropogenic warming in the past precludes the occurrence of anthropogenic warming in the present?

 

[ding]

Why do you think non-anthropogenic warming in the past precludes the occurrence of anthropogenic warming in the present?

Because the theoretical incremental surface temperature from the doubling of CO2 is 1C.

So if that's the anthropogenic warming you are speaking about, I agree. If you are arguing anything more than that, I disagree. Why do you morons keep ignoring natural climate fluctuations. The geologic record is littered with them.

 

[Crick]

Because the theoretical incremental surface temperature from the doubling of CO2 is 1C.

We've gotten more than 1C warming from only a 50% increase in CO2. How does that work?

So if that's the anthropogenic warming you are speaking about, I agree.

You agree to what?

If you are arguing anything more than that, I disagree.

You disagree to what?

Why do you morons keep ignoring natural climate fluctuations.

We aren't. Why do you keep imagining fluctuations that have no raison d'etre?

The geologic record is littered with them.

It's also littered with CAUSES for them that are NOT PRESENT NOW.

 

[ding]

We've gotten more than 1C warming from only a 50% increase in CO2. How does that work?

Natural climate fluctuations of a complex system. The geologic record is littered with such warming trends. The geologic record of interglacial periods are littered with warming AND cooling trends within the interglacial period.

Can you not see warming and cooling trends within interglacial periods in the temperature and ocean level data?

 

[ding]

You agree to what?

I don't think I could have explained it any more clearly. Maybe stop parsing the posts and read them in the context they were delivered with.

the theoretical incremental surface temperature from the doubling of CO2 is 1C. So if that's the anthropogenic warming you are speaking about, I agree. If you are arguing anything more than that, I disagree.

 

[Crick]

Maybe stop parsing the posts and read them in the context they were delivered with.