- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 66,932
- Reaction score
- 33,470
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The most "proof" that has been offered is a documented lie.
Funny on how you missed one of the latest on how CO2 caused things to cool off the last ten years or so...
A new study by the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) shows the planet "experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes" in the ten years from 2001 to 2010, the warmest decade since the start of modern measurements in 1850.
Those ten years also continued an extended period of accelerating global warming, with more national temperature records reported broken than in any previous decade. Sea levels rose about twice as fast as the trend in the last century.
Unprecedented climate extremes marked last decade, says UN | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Further evidence, if any more were needed, that climate change is a reality. Sure, the climate change deniers, like all conspiracy theorists, will deny any evidence put before them. Hopefully this new evidence will make some people to see the reality.
Yes, please do explain it.
Every place the AR4 talks about the 0.12 W/m^2 solar forcing, they call it "direct forcing." I'm sure you read my explanation on this in other threads, so tell me. What am I missing?
There are people who still think the planet is not getting warmer. Silly, I know, but it needs to be addressed because someone who doesn't think the planet is warming is unable to have a reasonably informed opinion on AGW and any potential actions, or lack thereof.
And why are "generic units" helpful?
So does the actions of humanity.
Case in point: the aral "sea"
Aral Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, please do explain it.
Every place the AR4 talks about the 0.12 W/m^2 solar forcing, they call it "direct forcing." I'm sure you read my explanation on this in other threads, so tell me. What am I missing?
No, once again when confronted with the weaknesses of the case for anthropogenic global warming, the alarmists change the subject.
There is little dispute among knowledgable skeptics about the fact that the world is gradually warming (estimates of how fast vary).
The unresolved questions are these: 1) What is causing the warming? 2) Is there anything even remotely feasible that mankind can do that will significantly alter this trend?
Following the example of Matt Ridley, I accept the consensus on the theory of evolution because the available data supports that theory.
I accept the consensus on most other areas of science for the same reason.
I do not accept the consensus on AGW because, from what I can tell, the data and the methods of climate scientists do not adequately support that theory.
Sure they can have regional effect. In fact, while the Aral Sea was drying up there was large tracts of Russia becoming green and fertile. So what is the net change to global climate?
And water is wet.
Now quit evading the answer... do you honestly believe the planet is not getting warmer? A yes or no will suffice.
The Aral Sea was once one of the largest inland body's of water in the world, now it is little more then a lake. And it was not caused by natural climate change, it was because the people of the region used inefficient agricultural practices and deprived the Aral Sea of its source of water.
Thousands of species are now extinct and what was once a large sea is now a desert. If that is not manmade climate change I will be amused to find out why.
There are also people who thinks the sun doesn't matter. I never understood that since the sun is the source of 99.99+% of the energy that becomes measurable temperature on earth.
Why are all the ACC deniers right wing?
I have had a pond since 1990. I never had algae growth in the winter but I do now and each year it gets worse. And I have noticed that weeds do not die off either. So, something is going on.
Why are all the ACC deniers right wing?
Is it because they don't want to be seen agreeing with the Democrat Al Gore?
Is it because oil companies, who produce anti climate change propaganda because they want petrol to remain dominant, fund the GOP?
Your moving the goal posts. The real debate has always been about AGW (man-made climate change), not about all other climate change. We climate change during the dinosaurs, no debates that.
Because we are smart and actually read the literature before deciding rather than abdicate our own intellectual sovereignty to hucksters and snake oil salesmen.
What are your qualifications when it comes to climatology? The telling phrase here is 'from what I can tell'. What can you tell exactly? How can you know if the methods don't support the theory if you're not an expert in the field? Why do the vast, vast majority of climatologists who've spent years researching climate change think the methods do support the theory?
If you have proof that 90+% of climatologists are wrong, then feel free to publish a peer reviewed paper showing that the methods are wrong.
What are your qualifications when it comes to climatology? The telling phrase here is 'from what I can tell'. What can you tell exactly? How can you know if the methods don't support the theory if you're not an expert in the field? Why do the vast, vast majority of climatologists who've spent years researching climate change think the methods do support the theory?
If you have proof that 90+% of climatologists are wrong, then feel free to publish a peer reviewed paper showing that the methods are wrong.
If you were smart and read the literature you would know the evidence strongly supports AGW and you would know the snake oil salesmen are the fossil fuel corporations and their bought off politicians.
American, despite the slam dunk evidence, some members here even refuse to admit that the planet is warming! :doh
This is why conservatives aren't scientists and do not possess the right mind for
this kind of work. You're not able to differentiate between junk science and real science. You cannot differentiate between an oil company funding a "study" to promote views that are favorable to the individual company with centuries of scientific work brought together from nations across the globe by scientists of all different walks of life with a passion for discovery and knowledge.
You chalk all this up to the simple formula that funding poisons the scientific process from start to finish in every situation so we can't trust anything they do. If you knew anything about real science you would realize how petty and ridiculous this is.
But you can make broad brush subjective statements like ". Conservatives aren't scientist and do not possess the right mind for scientific work" ?
A very unscientific and inaccurate analysis of a group of people.
Iv'e got 30 years of electronic, avionic and applied PLC programming and power correction experience, things that I do on a day to day basis that would make your head spin, things I promise you just don't have the base IQ to comprehend and I'm a proud Conservative. What I make look easy would perpetually confound you as most of your ilk are so married to a corrupt ideology the chance for true objectivity is a lost option.
When ever you want to test your percieved "higher intelligence" over mine I'm ready.
I'll expose your limitiations in an instant.
But I'm guessing like most liberals you'll crawfish away from this challenge. It's typical.
The left has done more damage to the legitimate science of alternative energies by politicizing them than any Conservatuve group.
Oh but wait, all we have to do is payup, more taxes on a imaginary construct called carbon credits and the world will be saved.
Sorry youv'e been called on your BS, what did you expect ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?