Why is it?

[yiostheoy]

There can be little doubt that the Earth is warming. I believe we have enough data and evidence to show it clearly.

I seriously doubt there is anything that can be done by it by humans however, no more than could all the ants in the world do anything about it either.

 

[jc456]

What evidence is that?

The evidence you ignore because you don't want it to be true.

Yeah I know, the warmers favorite line. Wash rinse repeat never changes. Everyday the same comment and everyday no evidence just the squawk line. Polly need a cracker?

 

[jc456]

There can be little doubt that the Earth is warming. I believe we have enough data and evidence to show it clearly.

I seriously doubt there is anything that can be done by it by humans however, no more than could all the ants in the world do anything about it either.

It's nice the ice is gone don't ya think?

 

[mamooth]

Poor stupid old woman....seems that the papers...all of them show concern over the cooling of the time...and as to the papers on particulates...science was grasping about looking for a reason for the cooling.....and perhaps a way to stop it... sorry this all so far over your head...but alas, the cooling scare was real...and hundreds of papers bear that out... no amount of your whining or lashing out will change it....

The Agee paper, again.

"This warming could be even more dramatic, considering the likely prospect for CO2 warming".

That's very clearly a warming prediction. You lied and said it's a cooling prediction. You continue to lie to everyone's face about it, even though everyone can look at the words and see you're lying.

You lied about all the papers. As I showed, 17 out of the 20 I checked did not predict cooling.

You're busted, you predatory old queer, and everyone knows it. This is over.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah I know, the warmers favorite line. Wash rinse repeat never changes. Everyday the same comment and everyday no evidence just the squawk line. Polly need a cracker?

Guy, the evidence is there, you're the one sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring it.

 

[jc456]

Yeah I know, the warmers favorite line. Wash rinse repeat never changes. Everyday the same comment and everyday no evidence just the squawk line. Polly need a cracker?

Guy, the evidence is there, you're the one sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring it.

Blah, blah, blah, as I stated, there it is. Wash, rinse, repeat

 

[IanC]

Yeah I know, the warmers favorite line. Wash rinse repeat never changes. Everyday the same comment and everyday no evidence just the squawk line. Polly need a cracker?

Guy, the evidence is there, you're the one sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring it.

I look at the evidence, and find the alarmists's case to be exaggerated. All their predictions for the near future have been walked back. Fundamental factors like climate sensitivity have continued to fall. Yet predictions for 2100 have only gotten more catastrophic.

YOU are the one who should be looking at the evidence more closely.

 

[JoeB131]

I look at the evidence, and find the alarmists's case to be exaggerated. All their predictions for the near future have been walked back. Fundamental factors like climate sensitivity have continued to fall. Yet predictions for 2100 have only gotten more catastrophic.

YOU are the one who should be looking at the evidence more closely.

Right...so all that melting glaciers and permafrost and flooding, no biggie, right?

I do agree, some of the alarmists have been over the top.

doesn't take away from the fact that the world is getting warming and it's having bad effects.

 

[IanC]

I look at the evidence, and find the alarmists's case to be exaggerated. All their predictions for the near future have been walked back. Fundamental factors like climate sensitivity have continued to fall. Yet predictions for 2100 have only gotten more catastrophic.

YOU are the one who should be looking at the evidence more closely.

Right...so all that melting glaciers and permafrost and flooding, no biggie, right?

I do agree, some of the alarmists have been over the top.

doesn't take away from the fact that the world is getting warming and it's having bad effects.

The glaciers started melting 150 years ago, and have mostly been melting ever since. Do you guys think the LIA was optimal?

What are these bad effects you talk about? The world is greener now than it has been since the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods.

 

[JoeB131]

The glaciers started melting 150 years ago, and have mostly been melting ever since. Do you guys think the LIA was optimal?

What are these bad effects you talk about? The world is greener now than it has been since the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods.

It's also a lot hotter... but never mind, you are evidence impervious, like most deniers.

 

[IanC]

The glaciers started melting 150 years ago, and have mostly been melting ever since. Do you guys think the LIA was optimal?

What are these bad effects you talk about? The world is greener now than it has been since the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods.

It's also a lot hotter... but never mind, you are evidence impervious, like most deniers.

You say it's a lot hotter now than in the MWP or RWP? Based on what evidence? And while youre at it, define 'a lot hotter '.

Proxy records, even cherrypicked ones, don't show recent out of the ordinary warmth. That is why they are truncated and replaced with instrumental data.

Please give me an idea of which strong pieces of evidence you are basing your opinion on, and we can debate their veracity. Perhaps I have missed some important studies but I doubt it.

 

[Crick]

Ian,

I missed where he claimed the source of his (our) understanding of current temperatures was current proxy values. This seems to indicate a significant temperature increase.

 

[jc456]

The glaciers started melting 150 years ago, and have mostly been melting ever since. Do you guys think the LIA was optimal?

What are these bad effects you talk about? The world is greener now than it has been since the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods.

It's also a lot hotter... but never mind, you are evidence impervious, like most deniers.

Why is hotter bad?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Ian,

I missed where he claimed the source of his (our) understanding of current temperatures was current proxy values. This seems to indicate a significant temperature increase.

You know if you look at your graph a different way, it looks like we are going into a friggin ice age, and for a very long time.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Hey Joe, did you know when the Earth was first created that the Temperature at the surface was molten? But then over a long period of time, the planet started cooling?

That's the key thing. LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

The temperatures are going up so fast, the planet doesn't have time to adapt... that's the problem.

But you don't believe in that dun-der science, Cleetus. They don't talk about none of that stuff in the Bible.

Back in 1977, Time magazine was saying that with cooling a "New Ice Age" was happening.

In ONE ARTICLE.

Meanwhile, the scientific consensus, even back then, was that global warming was a real thing.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

Allow me to summarize. It is true that all this news did appear in the popular mass media and TV shows like In Search Of, but believe it or not, the news media had the same proclivity then as they do now for reporting what's new and sensational. Climatologists had known for a long time about the greenhouse effect and the warming produced by carbon dioxide, but until the latter half of the 20th century, nobody had really been able to put together predictive models. Then in the late 1960s, the University of Washington published the cooling effects produced by sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, which reflected solar radiation away from the Earth. This was a profound new twist, and suddenly everyone started testing for sulfate aerosols, an industrial pollutant which is also the cause of acid rain. You may remember that from the 1970s as well. Cooling effects were added onto climate models, and for a time, a number of climatologists weren't sure which effect was going to be the more significant. That was all it took to make a sensational headline, and the mass media ensured that we've have shocking fears to keep us alarmed throughout the decade. But beneath the surface, the response of mainstream climatologists was more measured.

Translation~ you can't make green energy money if we we're going into another ice age ..but you can if you claim global warming.

 

[SSDD]

The things he is showing you in those photos have NOT happened within human history and they have probably not happened at that rate for the last 65 million years.

Of course they have...the fact that you believe they haven't is just one more thing that you believe without the first bit of corroborating evidence...I won't even dignify the idiot claim that floods never happened, or that houses in the arctic never sunk...both are to stupid for words...but glaciers...how much information do you wan't on melting..
glaciers...it has been going on for a very long time... The fact is crick...that you are full of shit.

 

[SSDD]

Well they don't...but you warmer wackos keep claiming that they do...and if you could find any, you would like nothing more than to slap me down with some...

Guy, I'm not having a conversation with you about all the evidence you are willfully ignoring.

Wich evidence would that be?...the evidence that you clearly can not find even one piece of? I asked to see just a single piece and you can't find the first bit to show me.

Um, yeah, but it took THOUSANDS of years for that to happen, not decades.

Sorry guy...wrong again...see the clippings from the newspapers above...as you can see, Greenland's Jakobshaven glacier retreated at a rate of 2 FEET PER DAY from 1851-1883....note the 1935 clipping from the Chicago Tribune...Alaskan Glaciers retreating MILES PER YEAR....and on and on and on... The fact is that glaciers retreat and advance...you lack any historical perspective and as a result, are easily fooled by modern claims of unprecedented warming when in fact, the modern warming we are seeing is insignificant in both magnitude and time compared to previous warming periods within the present interglacial.

Such as that one glacier in the second picture vanished in less than 60 years. That's what you nutters don't get... this is happening a lot faster than the planet and life forms that don't live in climate controlled boxes can adapt to.

In the photo you provided, it appears that the glacier retreated a few miles in the period between 1941 and 2004...63 years...certainly not unprecedented...again, look at the clips above....teh Jakobshaven glacier in Greenland retreating 2 feet per day from 1851 to 1883...That would be a loss of a bit over 2 miles in half the time indicated by your photo...and the glaciers in alas retreating MILES PER YEAR.....

And again, your lack of historical context, makes you an easy dupe...here is the same glacier...photographed in August of 1941...but unlike your propaganda photo, this series tells a more honest story...the second photo in my series was taken in 1950....9 years later......as you can see, most of the ice loss happened back when CO2 was at safe levels...and it happened in 9 years....you people are so easily fooled it is ridiculous...it is due to a profound lack of critical thinking skills...you just believe whatever people tell you and apparently never bother to look up anything for yourself...you believe there are mountains of evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis because that is what you have heard...had you ever bothered to look, you would see how wrong you are.

 

[SSDD]

What evidence is that?

The evidence you ignore because you don't want it to be true.

The evidence that you believe exists..but doesn't...the evidence you can't even provide a single piece of to support your argument.

 

[Crick]

What conclusions can be drawn here? That AR5, The Physical Science Basis, is nothing BUT a complilation of almost 2,000 pages of evidence supporting AGW is factually indisputable. That you continue to claim it does not indicates that you 1) Are exceptionally stupid or 2) Lie.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What conclusions can be drawn here? That AR5, The Physical Science Basis, is nothing BUT a complilation of almost 2,000 pages of evidence supporting AGW is factually indisputable. That you continue to claim it does not indicates that you 1) Are exceptionally stupid or 2) Lie.

University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes

The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.
"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."

The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.

Funny how liberal compassion always brings out the best of a liberal when they get caught in a big fat Lie. Once again, libidiots, CLIMATE CHANGE has been happening since the beginning of time, man made is nothing but a scheme to take the tax payers money and make people like Al-Jazeera Gore very wealthy. And the libidiots let them get away with it.