Baba Boxer blames global warming

[Dittohead not!]

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.

Did you think that meant that NOAA does not subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic global warming?

Tornadoes may or may not be a manifestation of AGW. A politician using tornadoes as an excuse to raise a carbon tax is only proof that the government wants more taxes and more power, which is something we all know anyway, but has nothing to do with AGW.

 

[flogger]

Did you think that meant that NOAA does not subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic global warming?

Tornadoes may or may not be a manifestation of AGW. A politician using tornadoes as an excuse to raise a carbon tax is only proof that the government wants more taxes and more power, which is something we all know anyway, but has nothing to do with AGW.

Just pointing out the fact there may be beneficial side effects too

Doesnt there actually have to be some continued global warming before we stick the 'A' in front of it because the omens dont look too good at the moment. Will you guys self destruct if it (horror of horrors) temps now start to fall ? :lol:

 

[Dittohead not!]

Doesnt there actually have to be some continued global warming before we stick the 'A' in front of it because the omens dont look too good at the moment. Will you guys self destruct if it (horror of horrors) temps now start to fall ? :lol:

No doubt, a long term decline in temperatures would provide an argument for your point of view. Perhaps that's why the silly bloggers keep stating that "global warming has stopped", despite the evidence at hand. It's the only way that the Church of Perpetual Denial can keep the faith.

 

[flogger]

No doubt, a long term decline in temperatures would provide an argument for your point of view. Perhaps that's why the silly bloggers keep stating that "global warming has stopped", despite the evidence at hand. It's the only way that the Church of Perpetual Denial can keep the faith.

Good grief you've been shown more than enough already confirming that it has stopped yet continue to parrot the same old cliched responses . Go find a pulpit elsewhere and stop wasting my time :bolt

 

[Dittohead not!]

Good grief you've been shown more than enough already confirming that it has stopped yet continue to parrot the same old cliched responses . Go find a pulpit elsewhere and stop wasting my time :bolt

I've been shown that the Church of Perpetual Denial says that it has stopped, yes. I've shown you that the past decade was the warmest on record.

If global warming has stopped, why was the past decade the warmest on record?

Oh, never mind. I've heard the answer to that one as well. it's because of faulty thermometers.

 

[flogger]

I've been shown that the Church of Perpetual Denial says that it has stopped, yes. I've shown you that the past decade was the warmest on record.

If global warming has stopped, why was the past decade the warmest on record?

Oh, never mind. I've heard the answer to that one as well. it's because of faulty thermometers.

Polly wants a cracker ....... :lamo

 

[Dittohead not!]

Polly wants a cracker ....... :lamo

It's OK that you're admitting that you have no further points to make. How can anyone argue against such overwhelming facts?

 

[flogger]

It's OK that you're admitting that you have no further points to make. How can anyone argue against such overwhelming facts?

No I'm admitting nothing of the sort. I'm alluding to the pointlessness of engaging parrots :lamo

 

[Dittohead not!]

No I'm admitting nothing of the sort. I'm alluding to the pointlessness of engaging parrots :lamo

Oh, I see.

The Church of Perpetual Denial can parrot the talking points of the silly bloggers who make stuff up,
but the rest of us can't repeat the findings of every scientific organization on the planet.

OK, that makes the argument a bit more fair. After all, you have chosen an untenable position without some such rule.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

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.

I thought we were talking about the AGW theory here.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

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.

So you are saying the earths climate was stable befor the industrial revolution?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I've been shown that the Church of Perpetual Denial says that it has stopped, yes. I've shown you that the past decade was the warmest on record.

If global warming has stopped, why was the past decade the warmest on record?

Oh, never mind. I've heard the answer to that one as well. it's because of faulty thermometers.

What you alarmist can't seem to grasp is the earth has been warming steadily since we came out of the last ice age with the exception of periods of extreme volcanic activity or sun related eras. The AGW theory says climate should warm at the same level that "man caused C02" increases but the last 15 years proves that just isn't so, wake up.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Can't be easy being a climate change denier these days.

 

[flogger]

So you are saying the earths climate was stable befor the industrial revolution?

The Earths climate is never stable and theres no evidence whatsoever that it is somehow more unstable today. The NOAA graph of tornado frequency suggests whatever has been happening to the climate has actually slightly reduced the frequency of such events over the last 40 years so obviously its not all bad

 

[flogger]

Can't be easy being a climate change denier these days.

Why would anyone deny climate change its happening all the time always has and always will ? It would be tantamount to denying seasonal variation or solar eclipses. No skeptic I know of has ever tried to do so.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

The Earths climate is never stable and theres no evidence whatsoever that it is somehow more unstable today. The NOAA graph of tornado frequency suggests whatever has been happening to the climate has actually slightly reduced the frequency of such events over the last 40 years so obviously its not all bad

Tell ditto. He can't seem to grasp that.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Why would anyone deny climate change ? It would be tantamount to denying seasonal variation or solar eclipses. No skeptic I know of has ever tried to do so.

See this is you being obtuse.

You know what I'm trying to say.

Fine... just so your brain can comprehend what it is I'm actually trying to say even though you knew what I was trying to say anyway.

It can't be easy being a man made climate change denier these days.

 

[flogger]

Tell ditto. He can't seem to grasp that.

Tell me about it ...........:doh

 

[flogger]

It can't be easy being a man made climate change denier these days.

An ever increasing number of the public would seem to be finding it very easy indeed as the hypothesis gradually implodes under the weight of both observed reality and the demonstrable BS its increasingly seen to be built on. It never really recovered from Climategate frankly

 

[Threegoofs]

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.

Why should any of us give a **** what YOU 'dismiss'?

Their work stands solidly credible in tge scientific literature. No study has seriously challenged Mann or Marcotts conclusions.

You say their findings are at odds with blah blah blah, but if it ain't published, its just gossip and whining on Internet sites.

You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[flogger]

Why should any of us give a **** what YOU 'dismiss'?

You should'nt, but you should compare thier modelled studies with the real world ones based on multiple proxies.

Their work stands solidly credible in tge scientific literature. No study has seriously challenged Mann or Marcotts conclusions.

Except every other 'real world' paleoclimatic study ever published showing completely contrarian evidence worldwide you mean ?

You say their findings are at odds with blah blah blah, but if it ain't published, its just gossip and whining on Internet sites.

Click on each interactive graph for the link to the relevant published study paper ..... again :roll:

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MW/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

You were already given this link to just such published studies. Sorry you didnt want to check them out for yourself but I cant physically make you if you dont want to. None of these corroborate the bizarre conclusions of Marcott or Mann.

In the fullness of time these scientist should hopefully be brought up on professional misconduct charges based on thier deliberately skewed studies because I cannot believe for a moment that they were unaware of such real world paleoclimatic research papers before they produced this garbage.

You're embarrassing yourself

... not in the slightest

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm wondering how your isolated examples - an ice core, a warm spot in Europe in 1200- relates to warming on the entire planet.

Mann is not realistically being argued in the scientific literature for 15 years. At all. Yet somehow, I'm supposed to believe some dude on a message board who thinks they should be prosecuted for scientific misconduct.

Hate to tell you, sweet cheeks, but disproving inaccurate scientific conclusions is really easy. And it would have been published by now of it was wrong.

 

[flogger]

I'm wondering how your isolated examples - an ice core, a warm spot in Europe in 1200- relates to warming on the entire planet.

What isolated examples ? You were presented with studies from all over the globe saying basically the same thing and all contradicting Mann .Are you seriously claiming Manns handful of tree ring proxies do represent the true global picture ? :lol: Even the IPCC has embarrassingly removed all trace of the Hockey Stick from AR5 such has been the controversy over its deeply flawed methodologies

Mann is not realistically being argued in the scientific literature for 15 years. At all

Here it is debunked root and branch . Please check the Peer reviewed references at the foot of the page before dismissing it out of hand.

The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science

If you dont like that here are even more published real world studies directly contradicting Manns conclusions too.

Popular Technology.net: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

Thats before we even mention the comprehensive statistical debunking by Mc Kintyre and Mc Kitrick 10 years ago and even many of the most extreme alarmists have had to concede this point

 

[Threegoofs]

You clearly don't understand science.

Rebuttals on the web are considered are seriously as psychic readings on national security. An article published on the Internet (with peer reviewed references! Like the ones I could append to this post) isn't worth crap.

Data that is published and vetted via review is what matters, and when that happens to overturn a paper, you see that paper get no more references in the scientific discourse.

Mann is considered still to be a landmark study, Marcott has built upon it and may likely be considered the standard decades from now. If it is not, it will be the scientific literature, and not amateur accountants (like McIntyre), who will determine that.

 

[flogger]

You clearly don't understand science.

Rebuttals on the web are considered are seriously as psychic readings on national security. An article published on the Internet (with peer reviewed references! Like the ones I could append to this post) isn't worth crap.

Data that is published and vetted via review is what matters, and when that happens to overturn a paper, you see that paper get no more references in the scientific discourse.

Mann is considered still to be a landmark study, Marcott has built upon it and may likely be considered the standard decades from now. If it is not, it will be the scientific literature, and not amateur accountants (like McIntyre), who will determine that.

Why did I even bother ? :2brickwal