10:10 - Global warming 'no pressure' *Somewhat graphic*

[BmanMcfly]

Which Bush co was also in favor of MMGW. Now do you have some real science to back up your position of MMGW or are you just playing a game?

The REAL science points out that the warming trend started BEFORE any man-made causes (except through exhalation, since it's apparent that this needs to be specified).

As for Bush, it's more accurate to say that he initially opposed AGW, but then later on in the presidency he started to change his tune somewhat...

Beyond that, you ARE making somewhat of a circular argument... Deuce sends out debunked data claiming it as accurate, and you say, 'no that data is in contention, do you have any scientists that aren't in doubt.'... so he provides the debunked data...

Bush in favor of AGW? That's a laugh.

Ya, he wasn't initially... but he was hardly eco-fascist level believer.

If it favors AGW, it's biased, therefore there's no proof of AGW. Circular logic. If that's your blanket opinion, are you really as open-minded as you seem to think you are? You don't have to answer here, it's a self-assessment question.

The REAL science is ALOT more tame... that's the thing, when you turn science into a democracy, you can't really call it science. Real science papers might say 'man's impact on climate accounts for 35% of the total warming of the past century' (or within the margin of error of the recording equipment, at least within the US... but also if you look at NASA's cherry picked data)

Me, I'm done with your ridiculous moving goal posts. You don't have any evidence of bias, you're just using it as an excuse to dodge any discussion.

That's cause you're not debating science you're pushing the green religion, while claiming 'look at the science'...

You can't even see the way that you take on two simultaneous yet opposing beliefs... like 'the sun has a negligible impact on global warming'... when even a child will tell you it's colder at night then at noon, also that the sun has such a huge impact that in north america it's winter at the time that the earth is closer to the sun but the angle is different. That's why the southern hemisphere is generally hotter during their summers because of the benefit of being closer to the sun WITH the better angle...

The earth is huge and the 0.00X % of global CO2 amounts to man's contribution through machinery and industry MIGHT have an impact, sure... BUT it's not going to somehow 'escalate out of control'... it's ALWAYS out of control... Unless you happen to accept the existance of weather modification technologies, but even then I imagine there'd be limits. There's NO WAY that you're going to 'stabalize the climate', the fact of the matter is that not only do we lack the ACTUAL scientific understanding of the full spectrum of contributions to the climate, we lack the technology to accurately modify the climate globally.

But anyway, what's the ideal CO2 level? What climate temperature will be produced when the CO2 is at that level? Does it bother you the level of scandals that have gone on?? How can you be so easy to accept admissions of open scientific fraud???

How come you're so unwilling to discuss REAL problems that don't involve CO2 apocalypse??

Oh, and I couldn't find it to quote again, but your defense of the climate gate emails IS in fact out of context when you start reading the letters chronologically. Forgive me for not getting the whole way through them yet.

 

[Deuce]

Provide evidence that this USDA report was "debunked." That's news to me.

Bman - let me know if you find any references to Shaviv, Friischristianson, Wegmen, or Svensmark, some of the more prominent skeptics. If there was a conspiracy to suppress conflicting information, surely there'd be a lot of discussion about these guys and trying to get their papers blocked.

I wrote this up on climategate a while back
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...earch-unit-email-scandal-aka-climategate.html

Then there's the thread in my signature that goes through some of the (very) basic science behind AGW.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-some-basic-empirical-evidence-favor-agw.html

 

[BmanMcfly]

Provide evidence that this USDA report was "debunked." That's news to me.

Of course it's 'news to you' because you're constantly ignoring the meat and potatoes of the issues... Don't you remember?? You said, to paraphrase, 'it's ok that NASA cherry picked data from the majoritarily world's hottest regions, because the data was from 1998 which was the hottest year on record'... and fail to understand the fallacy that this makes of your argument.

Bman - let me know if you find any references to Shaviv, Friischristianson, Wegmen, or Svensmark, some of the more prominent skeptics. If there was a conspiracy to suppress conflicting information, surely there'd be a lot of discussion about these guys and trying to get their papers blocked.

Gotcha... it's only ok to block SOME scientists from publishing data, rather then refuting their findings with good science and proving them to be a fraud, for some peer-reviewed papers it's better to simply make sure that they are not published? But only for SOME people?

I wrote this up on climategate a while back
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...earch-unit-email-scandal-aka-climategate.html

Good spin. Totally taking the emails and CREATING YOUR OWN fantasy context to make it work for yourself... try start reading the emails chronologically... and you'll see from the sequence and names of what was being sent and to whom and when, that your analysis that this was a 'simple trick'... this 'trick' was BLATANT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. Done. Over. They should be stripped of ANY AND ALL scientific honors, and tenure. That's for them alone... but they represent only one fraction of the total fraud... but fraud is okay, just like you're subtly advocating that murdering children can be some sort of 'joke' because it sends a 'pro-earth' message.

I know you're easy to justify the priest of the church of climate's wrongdoings because it's all for the greater good... but you don't even realize what this 'greater good' being pushed entails.

Finally, when you understand the CONTEXT of the word 'trick', it's a 'trick' to get the data from the 60's to match up with their tree rings, and then to get it to work in the 80's as well.. because they didn't understand WHY the trees weren't acting as 'good proxies' for those years... in other words, those scientists dedicated to tree studies had little to no understanding about how trees grow...

Look, there's A REASON why someone would go to GREAT LENGTHS to remove any personally identifiable information from the emails, the headers, etc, before blowing the whistle and releasing the data... there's also GOOD REASON why the media sat on the story for about 6 or 8 weeks before caving into the pressure and publishing on the subject... it's long first of all, and on SO MANY FRONTS it shows varying levels of frauds (most of them petty frauds, but none the less a fraud)

Then there's the thread in my signature that goes through some of the (very) basic science behind AGW.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-some-basic-empirical-evidence-favor-agw.html

This thread is pseudo-science AT BEST. You got mad at me in that thread for pointing out how you make things sound 'reasonable' at first... but then carry on to state things that are verifiably false, but putting it in such a way that this is simply 'counter-intuitive'... then claim that anyone that disagrees is 'not smart enough to understand'...

Once you get past the point of saying that Co2 has a warming influence on the climate, the rest of your argument starts straying from reality further and further. It actually amazes me how laughably asinine the rest of that post is... much like the earlier argument that 1998 was the hottest year on record, as justification for NASA's clear and demonstrable cherry picking of data... ex : 5 data points in the sahara but only 1 from the alps, 50 or so in the south west US and less then a dozen in canada, many points from the coastal regions, but none from the oceans... etc.

 

[Deuce]

Wow. B-man just said I'm advocating murdering children.

Welcome to the ignore list, buddy. Have fun with your conspiracy theories.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Wow. B-man just said I'm advocating murdering children.

Welcome to the ignore list, buddy. Have fun with your conspiracy theories.

Re-read your posts through this thread and you'll see what you're saying...

Oh, and BTW : http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...essure-somewhat-graphic-8.html#post1059026860

Hah. You make accusations of cherry-picking while using 1998, one of the hottest years on record, as a baseline? That's rich.

Meanwhile ignoring the fact that this 'cherry picking' was demonstrated through the LOCATIONS chosen and the relative warming / cooling of those datapoints... So, call me baiting / trolling / whatever, but honestly, at least read the BS you write so you know what you're saying and maybe consider thinking through your position.