Baba Boxer blames global warming

[Threegoofs]

This has been amply addressed already so if you wont read what gets presented to you then stop wasting everyones time flagwaving. We have more than enough of those here already

It has been. Yet you keep repeating the lie. The last decade was hotter than any other.

 

[Dittohead not!]

This has been amply addressed already so if you wont read what gets presented to you then stop wasting everyones time flagwaving. We have more than enough of those here already

I've seen that before, and it doesn't hold water.


Did you read the NASA link, the one actually from NASA, or do you think that NASA is a part of the great global conspiracy?

You know, arguing global warming is a whole lot like arguing with the truthers about 9/11 or the creationists about evolution.

Why I even try I don't know.

And, further, what does it matter? We can't do anything about it anyway.

 

[flogger]

It has been. Yet you keep repeating the lie. The last decade was hotter than any other.

As the Kobashi 2011 Ice Core graph of the last 4000 years I presented earlier clearly demonstrates. It most certainly has not, indeed much of that period the Earth has been considerably warmer than today.

 

[Threegoofs]

As the Kobashi 2011 Ice Core graph of the last 4000 years I presented earlier clearly demonstrates. It most certainly has not, indeed much of that period the Earth has been considerably warmer than today.

Yes. A single ice core in a single region.

Of course, multiple studies that have looked at worldwide temperatures (Mann 98, Marcott, 2013, others) have shown global temps right now are higher than ever in the last several thousand years.

Wondering why you didn't bother to mention those, much more appropriate studies. Oh. I know. You don't really care about the actual facts.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

OK, once again:

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries



The "cooling" and "pause in global warming" is just crap made up by right wing bloggers. There is no scientific basis for any of it.

Obviously you didn't read the link I gave you. Keep that mind closed tight. :lol:

 

[flogger]

Yes. A single ice core in a single region.

Of course, multiple studies that have looked at worldwide temperatures (Mann 98, Marcott, 2013, others) have shown global temps right now are higher than ever in the last several thousand years.

Wondering why you didn't bother to mention those, much more appropriate studies. Oh. I know. You don't really care about the actual facts.

Nonsense as this interactive map of multiple worldwide Peer review studies amply demonstrates.

Medieval Warm Period

The fact that in your defence you cite the highly contentious Mann and Marcott climate model/hockey stick studies (in favour of a vastly greater number of real world paleoclimatic sample proxy reconstructions that clearly show otherwise) speaks wonders about your true objectivity here frankly . One has to conclude that motivations other than scientific ones color your view on this issue :roll:

 

[Dittohead not!]

Obviously you didn't read the link I gave you. Keep that mind closed tight. :lol:

You can find pretty much anything you want on the internet. Some of the information is even true.

As for your link about the UK Met Office, here's what that organization had to say about your article:

UK Met Office Responds to Misleading Article
February 01, 2012; 1:18 PM

I just recently posted a blog titled "Diminishing Solar Output will have little Impact on Greenhouse Warming". The blog is about a UK Met office paper which explains that solar output will likely diminish over the next 90 years, but that it will have little impact in offsetting the warming from greenhouse gas emissions.

There is no scientific organization anywhere saying that the climate of the Earth is cooling, none.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You can find pretty much anything you want on the internet. Some of the information is even true.

As for your link about the UK Met Office, here's what that organization had to say about your article:


Finally you are getting why I posted that link, it is anything but a right wing blog and it too admits the predicted warming is not happening. The rise in C02 levels and the rate of warming are not in sync which goes along with the theory that the earth is in a naturally occurring warming trend that is far slower than the AGW theory predicted and is independent of C02 levels.

EDIT: I posted this but it didn't show up. The link I gave you was not a right wing blog and it admits the earth is not warming as the AGW theory predicted.

There is no scientific organization anywhere saying that the climate of the Earth is cooling, none.

I never said it was cooling so your straw man needs to go back to OZ.


I'll try this. LOL

Finally you are getting why I posted that link, it is anything but a right wing blog and it too admits the predicted warming is not happening. The rise in C02 levels and the rate of warming are not in sync which goes along with the theory that the earth is in a naturally occurring warming trend that is far slower than the AGW theory predicted and is independent of C02 levels.

I keep screwing this up, you have to read what I posted inside your quote.:lol:

 

[Dittohead not!]

I never said it was cooling so your straw man needs to go back to OZ.

I keep screwing this up, you have to read what I posted inside your quote.:lol:

There are none saying that global warming has stopped, either.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

There are none saying that global warming has stopped, either.

The AGW theory that warming will go up at the same rate as C02 levels has been shredded. The earth is in a warming trend and has been since the last ice age except for the little ice age era likely caused by volcanic activity but the C02 warming theory is kaput.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The AGW theory that warming will go up at the same rate as C02 levels has been shredded. The earth is in a warming trend and has been since the last ice age except for the little ice age era likely caused by volcanic activity but the C02 warming theory is kaput.

Anthropogenic global warming theory is that the average temperature of the Earth is rising, and that the carbon dioxide that is released through the burning of fossil fuels is accelerating the warming.

it doesn't say that CO2 is the only factor.

It also doesn't say that we can reverse the process by passing laws and increasing taxes.

However, I have another hypothesis, which is this:

All the hot air being generated in an attempt to show that science is wrong, and the hot air being generated in an attempt to "solve the problem" is adding more to global warming than my 4x4 pickup ever will.

So, Sawyer, you're contributing to global warming, and so is your buddy, Barbara Boxer! What do you think of that?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Anthropogenic global warming theory is that the average temperature of the Earth is rising, and that the carbon dioxide that is released through the burning of fossil fuels is accelerating the warming.

it doesn't say that CO2 is the only factor.

It also doesn't say that we can reverse the process by passing laws and increasing taxes.

However, I have another hypothesis, which is this:

All the hot air being generated in an attempt to show that science is wrong, and the hot air being generated in an attempt to "solve the problem" is adding more to global warming than my 4x4 pickup ever will.

So, Sawyer, you're contributing to global warming, and so is your buddy, Barbara Boxer! What do you think of that?

What I think of that and what I have said in here constantly is that the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do regardless of anything we do or don't do. There are hundreds of things going on that effect the climate and we are a bit player in this complex plot. At best we may have a tweaking effect on climate but it is so negligible in the scheme of things that any minor naturally occurring event will sweep away our tiny contribution like a speck of dust blown away in a hurricane.

 

[Threegoofs]

Nonsense as this interactive map of multiple worldwide Peer review studies amply demonstrates.

Medieval Warm Period

The fact that in your defence you cite the highly contentious Mann and Marcott climate model/hockey stick studies (in favour of a vastly greater number of real world paleoclimatic sample proxy reconstructions that clearly show otherwise) speaks wonders about your true objectivity here frankly . One has to conclude that motivations other than scientific ones color your view on this issue :roll:

It's only 'highly contentious' on Internet blogs.

The Mann paper still stands as a landmark piece of work that is repeatedly referenced, and the Marcott looks like it built on that work and will also be seen as a landmark work.

In science, when something is REALLY highly contentious, one sees multiple papers that will contradict those papers (especially Mann- which is 15 years old), and establish the papers flaws.

No such thing has been done with Mann, except on Internet blogs, which don't really get included in real scientific discourse.

The fact that you carelessly dismiss Mann and Marcott and apparently most climate literature speaks wonders about your true objectivity here frankly. One was to conclude that motivations other than scientific ones color your view on this issue.

 

[Threegoofs]

The AGW theory that warming will go up at the same rate as C02 levels has been shredded.

Why don't you write that up for PLOS one?

Because that's news to any scientists who study climate.

 

[Threegoofs]

What I think of that and what I have said in here constantly is that the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do regardless of anything we do or don't do. There are hundreds of things going on that effect the climate and we are a bit player in this complex plot.

Yep. Because man certainly hasn't had any effect upon the earths environment in a big way at all.

You apparently are unaware that it looks like we are living in a unique time in the last 500MM years- in one of the eight known massive extinction events in history. But this time, we are the cause.

You might be unaware of the environmental precedent of human made chemicals chewing up the Ozone layer. You might be unaware of the impact of man upon the forests of the earths surface, changing the face of continents for millennia. Possibly uouve never heard of the human- induced Dust Bowl.

You really need to read more.

 

[flogger]

It's only 'highly contentious' on Internet blogs.

The Mann paper still stands as a landmark piece of work that is repeatedly referenced, and the Marcott looks like it built on that work and will also be seen as a landmark work.

In science, when something is REALLY highly contentious, one sees multiple papers that will contradict those papers (especially Mann- which is 15 years old), and establish the papers flaws.

No such thing has been done with Mann, except on Internet blogs, which don't really get included in real scientific discourse.

The fact that you carelessly dismiss Mann and Marcott and apparently most climate literature speaks wonders about your true objectivity here frankly. One was to conclude that motivations other than scientific ones color your view on this issue.

I dismiss them because their modelling bears no relation to reality whatsoever as was more than amply illustrated for you if you had bothered to check the link I supplied you with. These are more akin to religious scripture than objective scientific analysis and both ignore entirely the findings of the bulk of paleoclimatic historical Peer reviewed proxies worldwide all of which are greatly at odds with thier modelled conclusions. Both these scientists are Climategaters too further impugning thier objectivity here.

 

[Dittohead not!]

What I think of that and what I have said in here constantly is that the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do regardless of anything we do or don't do. There are hundreds of things going on that effect the climate and we are a bit player in this complex plot. At best we may have a tweaking effect on climate but it is so negligible in the scheme of things that any minor naturally occurring event will sweep away our tiny contribution like a speck of dust blown away in a hurricane.

Now you've hit on the one question that is actually an issue: To what degree is climate change human caused?

You won't find any credible scientific organizations supporting the position that the effect is minimal, or negligible, of course, but some will say that the human contribution is more, others say less. That controversy is what fuels the silly bloggers who, once you pin them down to "yes, of course the climate is changing" want to go off and say, "but it isn't human caused. Look here, one scientist thinks that it is natural." Then point to a study showing that human contribution is less than thought, perhaps.

 

[flogger]

Now you've hit on the one question that is actually an issue: To what degree is climate change human caused?

You won't find any credible scientific organizations supporting the position that the effect is minimal, or negligible, of course, but some will say that the human contribution is more, others say less. That controversy is what fuels the silly bloggers who, once you pin them down to "yes, of course the climate is changing" want to go off and say, "but it isn't human caused. Look here, one scientist thinks that it is natural." Then point to a study showing that human contribution is less than thought, perhaps.

Without proof then any opinion is academic and that burden of proof is most definately on the advocate side here giving the swingeing anti human policies they insist we must follow. No such proof has ever existed so the rest is really all just politics

 

[Dittohead not!]

Without proof then any opinion is academic and that burden of proof is most definately on the advocate side here giving the swingeing anti human policies they insist we must follow. No such proof has ever existed so the rest is really all just politics

No such proof acceptable to the silly bloggers who deny scientific observation has ever existed, or ever could.

and yes, the rest is really all just politics

 

[ksu_aviator]

I get so sick of this idea that global warming must be CO2 related. After all, even though NASA claims it to be true, more than 49 scientists and astronauts signed a petition declaring their desire for NASA to stop making such claims. Here is what they said:

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models | Watts Up With That?

If you want to look at the real data, try this: http://petitionproject.org/gw_article/Presentation.ppt

And if you'd like to see a list of 31,487 signatories to the petition denouncing global warming, look here: Global Warming Petition Project

And if you doubt their qualifications, look here: Global Warming Petition Project

 

[flogger]

No such proof acceptable to the silly bloggers who deny scientific observation has ever existed, or ever could

How ironic given I've actually cited more scientific non 'blogger' observations on this thread so far than anyone else ! :roll:

 

[Dittohead not!]

How ironic given I've actually cited more scientific non 'blogger' observations on this thread so far than anyone else ! :roll:

More than have been published by every scientific organization on Earth?

 

[flogger]

More than have been published by every scientific organization on Earth?

What are you talking about ? Unless those observations can be empirically shown to prove the theory they are espousing then they are simply opinion nothing more. Given your unwillingness to even accept the fact that the warming has stopped despite all that has been presented to you so far, forgive me if I regard your assessment of the merit of such opinions with a very healthy cynicism.

You simply ignore or dismiss what you choose not to see just like the other drones do here

 

[Dittohead not!]

What are you talking about ? Unless those observations can be empirically shown to prove the theory they are espousing then they are simply opinion nothing more. Given your unwillingness to even accept the fact that the warming has stopped despite all that has been presented to you so far, forgive me if I regard your assessment of the merit of such opinions with a very healthy cynicism.

I'm talking about organizations like NASA, NOAA, CERN, and the MET office, (the one that responded to the misleading article cited as "evidence" above), and others world wide that have published thousands of peer reviewed articles based on empirical evidence that the Church of the Perpetual Deniers ignore. I'm talking about "skeptics" who continue to believe what they read on the internet, just as long as it supports what they wanted to believe all along trying to counter decades of scientific research with wishful thinking.

 

[flogger]

I'm talking about organizations like NASA, NOAA, CERN, and the MET office, (the one that responded to the misleading article cited as "evidence" above), and others world wide that have published thousands of peer reviewed articles based on empirical evidence that the Church of the Perpetual Deniers ignore. I'm talking about "skeptics" who continue to believe what they read on the internet, just as long as it supports what they wanted to believe all along trying to counter decades of scientific research with wishful thinking.

Getting back on topic I actually cited NOAAs observation that tornado activity had actually declined since the 1970s back on post #8. The MET office too has confirmed the 15 year warming hiatus so I dont get the idea where you think all these organisations somehow subscribe to your extremist viewpoint.