• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bill Clinton: "Greatest threat to civilizaton is climate change."

jfuh said:
YEs about this article, where is it? How does it state as you have clearly pointed out that global warming is a myth?

I can't find a copy of the actual document but here's a statement by the author and a link to his view on global warming.


Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In the spring of 1989 I prepared a critique of global warming, which I submitted to Science, a magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The paper was rejected without review as being of no interest to the readership. I then submitted the paper to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, where it was accepted after review, rereviewed, and reaccepted--an unusual procedure to say the least. In the meantime, the paper was attacked in Science before it had even been published. The paper circulated for about six months as samizdat. It was delivered at a Humboldt conference at M.I.T. and reprinted in the Frankfurter Allgemeine.

http://www.trac.org.au/cgi-bin/test?page=/myths/lindzen.htm

Edit: Here's a link to the article:

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No instead it proves it.
Wow, total scapegoat.
The article you presented says nothing that global warming is false. The author is only trying to present evidence that does not directly link human involvement with global warming, and not that global warming is non-existant.
Go back and read the article you presented as a source.
 
jfuh said:
Wow, total scapegoat.
The article you presented says nothing that global warming is false. The author is only trying to present evidence that does not directly link human involvement with global warming, and not that global warming is non-existant.
Go back and read the article you presented as a source.

yet if it proves that it is not man made, than it is just a natural ebb and flow of the planet
therefore not a threat
 
DeeJayH said:
yet if it proves that it is not man made, than it is just a natural ebb and flow of the planet therefore not a threat
No, it hardly brings into fact that global warming today is not a result of human interference.
Scientists like Lindzen are needed in order to keep the Scientific community in check. ARe you publishing science? or are you publishing Junk Science. With individuals like Lindzen it brings other scientists in to further justify thier claims as well as provide solid evidence of thier claims.
This article that Tot has posted, if you would pay attention to the date in which it was published? March of 1990, more then a decade old.
Many of his articles as well as statements he made before congress back in the early 90's and late 80's showed also of the many natural factors that play a significant role in thermo-equlibrium in the natural world.
It wasn't proved until sept. 2001 that aircraft contrails actually play a roll in maintaining by lowering ground temperatures.
It has been proven that global warming is not just an idea but a fact.
Today however as I've mentioned over and over again, there is a definitive link between human interactions and the global rise of temperatures.
Nature is the most prestigeous publication for any scientist, go ahead and read this abstract.
 
DeeJayH said:
yet if it proves that it is not man made, than it is just a natural ebb and flow of the planet
therefore not a threat

Well, the logic there hardly stands up. The End Permian extinction event was most likely a global warming event. Up to 94% of all species died.

However, since the chicken littles aren't producing any evidence to show that a warmer earth would be less pleasant, I don't know why their running around screaming.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
lmfao, oh really Bill? The greatest threat to civilization is the myth of global warming? Been watching the Day After Tomorrow one to many times have we?

In Mr. Clinton's three biggest threats to civilization global terrorism and an Nuclear Iran didn't even get an honorable mention. Well atleast he didn't say it was Bush... there's always that.

rolf did you see the southpark episode where everyone was terrified of global warming? they were all running from something that wasnt there walking around in 90 degree heat wearing eskimo parkas. they all thought they felt warm due to hypothermia. haha i was crying at that episode.
 
As you may know, the climate fad of the 70's was that another ice age was coming. That, of course was before the current fad of global warming.

Now it appears that the pendulum is about to swing back again:

Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age'
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.

The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.

Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.

The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.
http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r

jfuh:
Nice dodge...next time try and answer the questions. When I get a minute, I'll address each of the specious points you made in reply to my earlier post.
 
Gill said:
As you may know, the climate fad of the 70's was that another ice age was coming. That, of course was before the current fad of global warming.

Now it appears that the pendulum is about to swing back again:


http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r

jfuh:
Nice dodge...next time try and answer the questions. When I get a minute, I'll address each of the specious points you made in reply to my earlier post.
I don't see how I've dogded your "one question" in post #43 at all, as I clearly and unquestionably answered your "one question" in post #46. In fact not only did I answer it, I gave you much more back in further facts and information. So if you're going to "reply" anything, make sure you read everything I've posted thus far to keep up.
If "Nice dogde" is the best response you have, seriously need to consider going back to hs and this time pay attention in science class.
 
Last edited:
If "Nice dogde" is the best response you have, seriously need to consider going back to hs and this time pay attention in science class.
I would look quite odd at my age in a high school class. Besides, when I went to school, the teachers concentrated on teaching us facts and not on indoctrinating us with left wing ideology.

Now, on to the question at hand....

Your answer:
Notice the time line you have, the industrial revolution did not begin until the very begining of your graph. Thus human contribution is not even on your graph.
Ahhh, but that's not what I asked. I'll try again.. which of the five warming periods on the graph were caused by humans? Let me make it easy for you. If these warming periods were NOT caused by humans, then what did cause them? Surely they can't be naturally occurring cycles which would crush the theory of human caused global warming.

Here is where I point you to this graph that was published by the IPCC of Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change.

Quote:
Millennial Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature reconstruction (blue – tree rings, corals, ice cores, historical records) and instrumental data (red) from AD 1000 to 1999. A smoother version (black), and two standard error limits (grey) are shown. Source: IPCC Third Assessment Report
Notice that within only the time frame of 1 century, a fully industrialized century, that the mean temperature variance is quickly approaching 1degree which is according to the Vostok ice core reconstruction graph only happens within millenial time frames.

Also I provide you this source on global climate change from the IPCC as well...

Ah yes, the infamous “hockey stick” graph by Mann and Jones. Unfortunately, this graph has been widely debunked by no less than five research groups. I’ll point out some of the problems with this graph.

1. Mann and Jones indicate that global average air temperatures from A.D. 200 to 1900 were nearly constant. Missing from their timeline, however, are the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850). The warming and cooling periods are mysteriously missing.

2. Several researchers have pointed out that this graph uses “selective” data. Any data that did not fit Mann and Jones preconceived notions of global warming were left out of the graph.

3. The “blade” of the graph that indicates the dire global warming predictions of the IPCC can not be duplicated by any known scientific or statistical methodology.

In the Spring of 2003, Stephen McIntyre requested the MBH98 data set from Mann. He is not a scientist or an economist, he was just curious how the graph was made and wanted to see if the raw data looked like hockey sticks too. After some delay Mann arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used for MBH98. One of the first things Stephen discovered was that the PCs used in MBH98 could not be replicated. In the process of looking up all the data sources and re-building Mann’s data set from scratch, Steve discovered a quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of available series, etc. Some of these had small effects on the final results, but replacing the PCs had a big effect. I joined the project in the late summer of 2003 and we published a paper9 in October 2003 explaining the errors we found in Mann’s data. We showed that when these errors were corrected the famous hockey stick disappeared.

4. Incomplete temperature data was used to construct the graph. One group of tree borings from California skew the data completely. When the 20 tree temperature data sets are removed, the hockey stick disappears.

This graph is the center piece of the IPCC report to all the world’s governments. Without it, this report would be nothing.

Another oddity is that the graph illustrating the 1990 IPCC report DID show both the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. I guess it got lost somewhere in the 90's.

The temperature changes noted in the IPCC report for the last 25 years relies soley on ground based temperatures, completely ignoring both balloon and satellite data. In fact, satellite data is barely mentioned in the report. As anyone that has ever looked at a local weather forecast knows, temperatures are always higher in cities which is where most temperature recording stations are located. There was some attempts to adjust temps for this urban heat island affect, but in numerous cases, the temps were not adjusted properly. Ground based temperatures are obviously affected by their location, the condition of the enclosure and the timing of the readings. Readings are less affected in the USA where the recording equipment is usually top notch, however in many foreign countries, the condition of the recording equipment and spacing of stations is highly questionable. This is why satellite readings are considered more accurate. Satellite microwave readings read temps throughout the entire world in the lower troposphere where global warming,if it exists, would be most prevalent. Satellite data is available from 1979 to this day and do NOT indicate the amount of global warming that the doom and gloomers at the IPCC predict.

nasa.gif


And... using surface temp data from the US, we get this graph. It clearly indicates the dust bowl period of the early 30's but no significant temp rise in the last ten years.

usa-1999.gif
 
Part II:

Tot please take note to the appendix section starting on page 417, notice the incredibly long list of authors and review editors? This is what I'm looking for with regards to any source you post that is contrary otherwise it is completely un-credible.
Are you even aware of the huge controversy regarding the review of this document? Most of the reviewing scientist were incensed that the Executive Summary did not accurately reflect the data in the full report. The Summary was not written by the scientists, but rather by political members of the group. Of course they knew that few people in government or the media would look beyond the Summary.

In this and other threads, you seem obsessed with peer review of scientific articles. Did you know that the IPCC report underwent major changes AFTER being peer reviewed with NO knowledge of the reviewers until after it was published?

This created a HUGE controversy with many accusations being thrown about. Here are some examples of the changes: (bold had been deleted, italics are additions)

Summary

" Many but not all The Majority of these studies show that the observed changes in global-mean, annually-averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system."

deleted:

"The evidence rests heavily on the reliability of the (still uncertain) estimates of natural variability noise levels."


new:

"Furthermore, the probability is very low that these correspondences could occur by chance as a result of natural internal variability. The vertical patterns of change are also inconsistent with the response patterns expected for solar and volcanic forcing."

"Viewed as a whole, these results indicate that the observed trend in global warming mean temperature over the past 100 years is larger than our current best estimates of natural climate variations over the last 600 years. unlikely to be entirely natural in origin."
Section 8.1

"The attribution of a detected climate change to a particular causal mechanism can be established only by testing involves tests of competing hypotheses."

"The claimed statistical detection of an anthropogenic signal in the observations must always be accompanied by the caveat that other explanations for the detected climate-change signal cannot be ruled out completely, unless a rigorous attempt has been made to do so."

new: "There is, however, an important distinction between achieving 'practically meaningful' and 'statistically unambiguous' attribution. This distinction rests on the fact that scientists and policymakers have different perceptions of risk. While a scientist might require decades in order to reduce the risk of making an erroneous decision on climate change attribution to an acceptably low level (say 1-5%), a policymaker must often make decisions without the benefit of waiting decades for near-statistical certainty."

Section 8.1.3

"We now have: * more relevant model simulations, both for the definition of an anthropogenic climate change signal and for the estimation of natural internal variability. * more relevant simulations for the estimation of natural internal variability, and initial estimates from paleoclimatic data of total natural variability on global or hemispheric scales; * more powerful statistical methods for detection of anthropogenic change, and a better understanding of simpler statistical methods and increased application of pattern-based studies with greater relevance for attribution."

Section 8.2.2 Inadequate Representation of Feedbacks

new: "Deficiencies in the treatment and incorporation of feedbacks are a source of signal uncertainty."

Section 8.2.5

"Current pattern-based detection work has not attempted is now beginning to account for these forcing uncertainties."

Section 8.3.2

"Initial attempts are now being made For these reasons and many others, scientists have been unable to use paleoclimate data in order to reconstruct a satisfactory, spatially-comprehensive picture of climate variability over even the last 1,000 years. Nevertheless, The process of quality-controlling paleoclimatic data, integrating information from different proxies, and improving spatial coverage should be encouraged. Without a Better paleoclimatic data bases for at least the past millennium, it will be difficult are essential to rule out natural variability as an explanation for recent observed changes, or and to validate coupled model noise estimates on century time scales (Barnett et al., 1995)."
There are many more, but I'll stop here. It goes on and on.

This is just a tiny taste of the data I have on the religion of global warming. I'll let you digest this for a few days and post some more if you want.
 
Gill said:
Part II:


Are you even aware of the huge controversy regarding the review of this document? Most of the reviewing scientist were incensed that the Executive Summary did not accurately reflect the data in the full report. The Summary was not written by the scientists, but rather by political members of the group. Of course they knew that few people in government or the media would look beyond the Summary.

In this and other threads, you seem obsessed with peer review of scientific articles. Did you know that the IPCC report underwent major changes AFTER being peer reviewed with NO knowledge of the reviewers until after it was published?

This created a HUGE controversy with many accusations being thrown about. Here are some examples of the changes: (bold had been deleted, italics are additions)


There are many more, but I'll stop here. It goes on and on.

This is just a tiny taste of the data I have on the religion of global warming. I'll let you digest this for a few days and post some more if you want.

Oh we've already been over this he'll say it's not credible proof even though it is from PHD's and climatologists.
 
Gill said:
I would look quite odd at my age in a high school class. Besides, when I went to school, the teachers concentrated on teaching us facts and not on indoctrinating us with left wing ideology.
Well then all science has become left wing ideology then hasn't it? Very lame.

Gill said:
Ahhh, but that's not what I asked. I'll try again.. which of the five warming periods on the graph were caused by humans? Let me make it easy for you. If these warming periods were NOT caused by humans, then what did cause them? Surely they can't be naturally occurring cycles which would crush the theory of human caused global warming.
Now you are completely lieing. Not only have I answered your question immediately proceeding in my post, but I've answered it again in my later post. I've clearly stated twice now that my answer is None of them.
Naturally occuring cycles in no way "crush" human interventional causes. They simply state just that. That there are natural global warming and cooling trends.

Gill said:
Ah yes, the infamous “hockey stick” graph by Mann and Jones. Unfortunately, this graph has been widely debunked by no less than five research groups. I’ll point out some of the problems with this graph.
Debunked? Five research groups? Care to provide the publications then?
But fair enough let's see what you have down here.


Gill said:
1. Mann and Jones indicate that global average air temperatures from A.D. 200 to 1900 were nearly constant. Missing from their timeline, however, are the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850). The warming and cooling periods are mysteriously missing.
No those periods are not missing at all. They're clearly on the graph and well within the tolerance levels of errors. Additionally note the variance in measurements, one is ice cores and coral reefs tree rings and so on. The later from late 1800's through present are instrumentation. Much more accurate. Not to mention the overlay of instrumentation with tree ring, ice core further shows the accuracy of estimated temperatures prior to late 1800's.
Now, both the medeival warm period and little ice age were fairly localized events predominently in the north and western hemisphere, predominenty Europe and North America, both regions which weather patterns are affected significantly by the mid atlantic current. Much research has shown that both of those were merely El Ninos and La Nina's, another natural cycle.

Gill said:
2. Several researchers have pointed out that this graph uses “selective” data. Any data that did not fit Mann and Jones preconceived notions of global warming were left out of the graph.
Refer to the IPCC article that I've posted as well. Then let's talk about this talking point.

Gill said:
3. The “blade” of the graph that indicates the dire global warming predictions of the IPCC can not be duplicated by any known scientific or statistical methodology.
Completely wrong. The global warming conditions predicted by this graph can be easily predicted with computer models. Not to mention that the graph I posted does not contain "estimated" or predicted future trends as is your "blade".

Gill said:
In the Spring of 2003, Stephen McIntyre requested the MBH98 data set from Mann. He is not a scientist or an economist, he was just curious how the graph was made and wanted to see if the raw data looked like hockey sticks too. After some delay Mann arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used for MBH98. One of the first things Stephen discovered was that the PCs used in MBH98 could not be replicated. In the process of looking up all the data sources and re-building Mann’s data set from scratch, Steve discovered a quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of available series, etc. Some of these had small effects on the final results, but replacing the PCs had a big effect. I joined the project in the late summer of 2003 and we published a paper9 in October 2003 explaining the errors we found in Mann’s data. We showed that when these errors were corrected the famous hockey stick disappeared.
Pretty much like explaining micro and macro economics to a burger flipper. Oh? You joined the error reformation process? In that case show your data.

Gill said:
4. Incomplete temperature data was used to construct the graph. One group of tree borings from California skew the data completely. When the 20 tree temperature data sets are removed, the hockey stick disappears.
Please, show your publications for this then.

Gill said:
This graph is the center piece of the IPCC report to all the world’s governments. Without it, this report would be nothing.
Wrong, there are many other graphs including your vostoc ice cores. I point to your former graph again. Notice that we are supposed to be in the "warm" period right now. According to that same graph we should be declining into another ice age. Now let's super impose this with actual temperatures today, what do we get? Oh wow, temperature is not dropping at all, hmmm what could cause that, natural processes? absolutely, Human causes? why not?

Gill said:
Another oddity is that the graph illustrating the 1990 IPCC report DID show both the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. I guess it got lost somewhere in the 90's.
Really? Here's another explaination, LOCALIZED EVENTS.

Gill said:
The temperature changes noted in the IPCC report for the last 25 years relies soley on ground based temperatures, completely ignoring both balloon and satellite data. In fact, satellite data is barely mentioned in the report.
Lol, yes we have satellites prior to 1955. Good one.

Gill said:
As anyone that has ever looked at a local weather forecast knows, temperatures are always higher in cities which is where most temperature recording stations are located.
Wrong, those are only for forecasts, not monitoring stations. Ocean, high alttitude stations in moutains, tundra, desert and arctic/antarctic stations are where most high sensitivity stations are. Which by the way do much more then simple temperature measurements.

Gill said:
There was some attempts to adjust temps for this urban heat island affect, but in numerous cases, the temps were not adjusted properly.
Sources for this?

Gill said:
Ground based temperatures are obviously affected by their location, the condition of the enclosure and the timing of the readings. Readings are less affected in the USA where the recording equipment is usually top notch, however in many foreign countries, the condition of the recording equipment and spacing of stations is highly questionable. This is why satellite readings are considered more accurate. Satellite microwave readings read temps throughout the entire world in the lower troposphere where global warming,if it exists, would be most prevalent.
If global warming exists? Can you stay on track here, are you talking about human intervention or are you talking about global warming in general.

Gill said:
Satellite data is available from 1979 to this day and do NOT indicate the amount of global warming that the doom and gloomers at the IPCC predict.
Wrong again, temperature satellites have been available since 1962, though primarily for military purposes. Satellites do not predict, they are instruments that gather data that is then used for prediction. The newly modified IPCC version inclusive of satellite data, clearly reflects temperature predictions that would continue to grow with the elevating concentrations of green house gases.
Gill said:
nasa.gif


And... using surface temp data from the US, we get this graph. It clearly indicates the dust bowl period of the early 30's but no significant temp rise in the last ten years.

usa-1999.gif
You'll forgive me for not trusting non-published data.
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
Are you even aware of the huge controversy regarding the review of this document? Most of the reviewing scientist were incensed that the Executive Summary did not accurately reflect the data in the full report. The Summary was not written by the scientists, but rather by political members of the group. Of course they knew that few people in government or the media would look beyond the Summary.
The fact that this review is subjected to major revisions is exactly why I trust the science and not the personal opinions or some guys website with data that he "calculated". The scientists referenced many were unhappy that not all thier data was presented. Most of thier data suggested much more serious global warming trends as opposed to the modest slopes presented by the IPCC. As for the reviewers no, none of them had a problem with the published material.

Gill said:
In this and other threads, you seem obsessed with peer review of scientific articles.
Only peer review articles represent credible scientifically sound evidence. Just that simple. Or is it that you are denying this simple fact?

Gill said:
Did you know that the IPCC report underwent major changes AFTER being peer reviewed with NO knowledge of the reviewers until after it was published?
Lol. Yep, I knew that. Now do you know which sections were modified? From what you have quoted below it doesn't seem you know at all.

Gill said:
This created a HUGE controversy with many accusations being thrown about. Here are some examples of the changes: (bold had been deleted, italics are additions)


There are many more, but I'll stop here. It goes on and on.

This is just a tiny taste of the data I have on the religion of global warming. I'll let you digest this for a few days and post some more if you want.
You can post as many revisions to a few sections of a nearly 500 page report as you want. It hardly to any extent changes the facts. I'll make it simple for you. Please respond to these questions.
1) Is Carbon Dioxide a green house gas?
2) List some (make it easy, how about 10) major sources of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.
3) What are the top two sources of storage of carbon dioxide in the geosphere?
4) What is the phenomenon of the planet Venus' superheated atmosphere caused by?
5) What is the most significant green house gas in the atmosphere, what is the 2nd most significant?
Finally,
6) What are the major gases expelled through the combustion of fossil fuels, are any of them green house gases?
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Oh we've already been over this he'll say it's not credible proof even though it is from PHD's and climatologists.
Of course I won't say it's credible proof, it's not peer review. In as the same way that proponents of ID are also PhD's in related biological fields. however none of thier ideas about ID are peer reviewed scientific literature.
Perhaps the question is your understanding of what is credible science and what is not.
 
Gill said:
jfuh says:


300px-Vostok-ice-core-petit.png


As you can clearly see in this graph, both temperature and carbon dioxide have varied drastically over the history of the earth. This graph is based on the Vostok ice cores and cover the last 400,000 years of the earths existence. Ice ages, naturally followed by warming periods, have occurred every hundred thousand years or so.

I have one question: Which of the five warming periods shown in this graph were caused by humans and how??

If these warming periods occurred in the past with no human interference, how are you so sure we are causing the VERY SLIGHT warming we see now?


Nice graph. Seems to show a raise in temperature and a rise in CO2 occur at the same time. Or am I looking at it wrong?
 
Pacridge said:
Nice graph. Seems to show a raise in temperature and a rise in CO2 occur at the same time. Or am I looking at it wrong?
No you're looking at it right.
 
jfuh said:
No you're looking at it right.

Then I don't get it. If there's clear evidence that temperature and Co2 rise at the same time what difference does it make whether or not previous warming cycles were caused by humans or not? How does that prove this warming cycle isn't at least being accelerated by human activity?

I mean it's kind of like saying my dog drinks water every day and goes out in the yard and takes a leak everyday. I can collect that data, show you there's a cycle, I can show you he does it everyday. I can even have him examined by a vet to show this behavior produces no ill affects in his health. Therefore if I start pumping an extra 25 gallons of water down his throat on a daily basis there can be no adverse affects. Because I've already shown there's a cycle of him drinking daily and leaking it out daily without harmful side effects.

Or do some people think that human activity doesn't produce Co2? That all these millions and millions of cars and other industrial complexes are not releasing so call green house gases? I mean if you know Co2 and warming are related and you know we're producing Co2 then where is the issue?
 
Pacridge said:
Then I don't get it. If there's clear evidence that temperature and Co2 rise at the same time what difference does it make whether or not previous warming cycles were caused by humans or not? How does that prove this warming cycle isn't at least being accelerated by human activity?

I mean it's kind of like saying my dog drinks water every day and goes out in the yard and takes a leak everyday. I can collect that data, show you there's a cycle, I can show you he does it everyday. I can even have him examined by a vet to show this behavior produces no ill affects in his health. Therefore if I start pumping an extra 25 gallons of water down his throat on a daily basis there can be no adverse affects. Because I've already shown there's a cycle of him drinking daily and leaking it out daily without harmful side effects.

Or do some people think that human activity doesn't produce Co2? That all these millions and millions of cars and other industrial complexes are not releasing so call green house gases? I mean if you know Co2 and warming are related and you know we're producing Co2 then where is the issue?
Hahaha, you've got me big time on this. Ask those who claim human contribution to be a myth. Tot first claimed global warming to be a myth all together but has since changed positions and now claims that Humans have no ability to alter global temperatures. Gill.... I have no idea what Gill's bottom argument is, probably in coordination with Tot though. They change thier arguments much too quickly.
 
Wrong, those are only for forecasts, not monitoring stations. Ocean, high alttitude stations in moutains, tundra, desert and arctic/antarctic stations are where most high sensitivity stations are. Which by the way do much more then simple temperature measurements.

I am totally astounded by this reply!! If you think that temperature data from which climate data is derived comes only from "high altitude stations in mountains, tundra, desert and arctic/antarctic stations", then this debate is pointless.

Temp data comes from stations throughout the United States. Each and every city and airport records climate data. I'll post a map showing locations of US stations:
new_ushcn_map.jpg


I strongly suggest that you take a course in weather/climatology 101. When you finish, come back and we can continue this discussion. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time debunking the rest of the myths you posted.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
lmfao, oh really Bill? The greatest threat to civilization is the myth of global warming? Been watching the Day After Tomorrow one to many times have we?

In Mr. Clinton's three biggest threats to civilization global terrorism and an Nuclear Iran didn't even get an honorable mention. Well atleast he didn't say it was Bush... there's always that.

I thought that it was nuclear proliferation as per Amy Carter.
 
Gill said:
I am totally astounded by this reply!! If you think that temperature data from which climate data is derived comes only from "high altitude stations in mountains, tundra, desert and arctic/antarctic stations", then this debate is pointless.
Did I ever say "ONLY"? No. I'm pointing out that in addition to cities which you are using for your conclusions as being weather stations there are many other stations as well, many of which are in rural areas outside the influence of urban sprawl.

Gill said:
Temp data comes from stations throughout the United States. Each and every city and airport records climate data. I'll post a map showing locations of US stations:
new_ushcn_map.jpg
I like how you almost always post graphs and pictures that are in direct correlation to what I say. Notice in your own graph of the vast amount of weather stations that are NOT in urban cities.

Gill said:
I strongly suggest that you take a course in weather/climatology 101. When you finish, come back and we can continue this discussion. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time debunking the rest of the myths you posted.
Funny, I was about to suggest you do the same thing.
What happend to all the other points of argument? Realizing your on the wrong side of the debate? Too many facts in support of human intervention to climate change?
 
Last edited:
I like how you almost always post graphs and pictures that are in direct correlation to what I say. Notice in your own graph of the vast amount of weather stations that are NOT in urban cities.
Interesting comment since you have no way of knowing where these stations are. Do you not realize that even small cities exhibit UHI??

Funny but when you say "Wrong, those are only for forecasts, not monitoring stations.". I took it to mean that all were. Nice try though.

Realizing your on the wrong side of the debate?
Read the quote below by Alexander Pope.
 
Gill said:
Interesting comment since you have no way of knowing where these stations are. Do you not realize that even small cities exhibit UHI??
Ah ok, I see, so then it's the cities that are causing global warming. Not green house gases? Go ahead and look at how much variance there is between large urban sprawls vs small towns. Strictly speaking in terms of precision even the monitoring station itself will exhibit UHI. But then do you not think that the person who gathers that data will either 1) average out the error 2) take into account of that error and put it into the calculation? Perhaps you need to take a course in analytical methods?

Gill said:
Funny but when you say "Wrong, those are only for forecasts, not monitoring stations.". I took it to mean that all were. Nice try though.
You only referenced the stations that were in urban cities.

Gill said:
Read the quote below by Alexander Pope.
Can we say, evasion? No, maybe you just really can't link the dots together. Perhaps my analysis have been too complicated for you.
Well let's put it into simpler logic and common sense. Refer to Pacridges post #67 and #69 of this thread. Response? or evade? or choice number 3, suck it up and admit you've erred.
 
Back
Top Bottom