• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

No Global Warming, Global Cooling Instead [W:398]

1) If you think there's no evidence for a connection between CO2 and temperature, I don't know what to tell you.
2) We don't know absolutely everything about any subject. But we still set policy, somehow.



With the stated cause of AGW continuing to increase, the temperature has started to decrease.

Perhaps this will help you in determining what to tell him.
 
Solar output decreased, but temperature did not decrease. Where is the connection between the sun and temperature?

(hint: multiple variables are at play, so in short periods any single variable can easily have its influence masked by other types variability)

(hint2: 15 years is actually a short period in terms of trying to assess temperature trends. Difficult to establish a statistically significant trend, or lack thereof, in such a period)



Would a period of 300 years work better for you?

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Mazzarella-Scafetta-60-yr.pdf
 
However, it should be noted that most of the famous "climatologists" have degrees in fields that have little to nothing to do with any climate science (except tangentially). Head on over to RealClimate and read the CVs of the honchos there, including Mann. Most are mathematicians and physicists.



This is appropriate. The study of climate is one of crunching numbers. Lots of numbers.
 
The problem isn't "thinner". It's "in the past".. Follow me? A dubious term. Of course it could have been thinner in the past, and at another time in the past it could have been thicker, just as more or less coverage... It's a dubious claim made to make an implication that they do not have to prove.

Read dude, read...



The thawing perma frost of Siberia is emitting more CO2 than the combined industry of the USA. Why? The plants that used to grow there died, fell on the ground, froze and the carbon they held was sequestered. Now the permafrost is melting and the CO2 is outgassing.

What does this tell us?

First and most obviously, it tells us that it's getting warmer right now. However, it is also telling us that it was warmer than today at some point in the past when these plants grew and then died and then froze.

Finally, it tells us that this previous warming was millennia before the Industrial Revolution.

Warmer than today with no forcing from the activities of man.
 
Climatology as a field owes it's current standing in the media and scientific circles, to the theory of AGW. Without it, they are back to obscurity, no big grants, no big research funding, nobig reason for the media to listen to them.. Dude in 30 years they went from complete obscurity to having their own science journal and hobnobbing with world leaders. Do you expect anything BUT support for AGW now? LOL..

It's the fox guarding the hen house. And the worst part is the entire field relies on computer models as their sole means to express their data and findings.They can do ice core studies and tree ring examinations, but that data has to be compiled using a computer model, and they try and make it seem as if those models are as if those models are observed and confirmed evidence. They are not. They are a construct designed to give an idea at best. They are not a replacement for observed and confirmed physical evidence.

Weathermen use similar models and aren't even better than 70% on a mere 8 day forecast. And you act as if a reconstruction or prediction from similar means is undeniable proof...



I can't seem to find a university in the USA that offers a degree in Climatology. Can you?
 
No Global Warming, Global Cooling Instead

The thawing perma frost of Siberia is emitting more CO2 than the combined industry of the USA. Why? The plants that used to grow there died, fell on the ground, froze and the carbon they held was sequestered. Now the permafrost is melting and the CO2 is outgassing.

What does this tell us?

First and most obviously, it tells us that it's getting warmer right now. However, it is also telling us that it was warmer than today at some point in the past when these plants grew and then died and then froze.

Finally, it tells us that this previous warming was millennia before the Industrial Revolution.

Warmer than today with no forcing from the activities of man.

It tells me that the permafrost might be a feedback mechanism that will make AGW that much worse.

But then again, I listen to scientists, not weathermen and nutjob conservatives.
 
What do you want? The statement? Did it.

The membership numbers? That comes mostly from memory.

And they wouldn't have an official position on your nonsensical statement.



I missed the statement on why they feel the planet has been cooling for more than 10 years.

Did you post that part? They seem very concerned about 20 years of warming and completely ignorant on the ten years of cooling. Thoughts?
 
Yeah. I can tell you're not a member of anything. If I had to guess, its probably not voluntary on your part....

The statement isn't nonsensical. It's stood for about ten years, and there is no outrage or even discontent from AAAS members about it.

Because saying AGW is real is not really a controversial issue among scientists. No matter how much your kind pretends it is.



All of the causes remain, but the predicted effect is no more.

If there is an agenda to conform to, then i would expect the science community to conform to that agenda. If the data is to be considered and no agenda exists to conform to, we might expect them to question why the predicted effect is not occurring.

Can you please post the questions posed by your revered AAAS rising from their investigation into the lack of warming which they predicted?
 
No Global Warming, Global Cooling Instead

I missed the statement on why they feel the planet has been cooling for more than 10 years.

Did you post that part? They seem very concerned about 20 years of warming and completely ignorant on the ten years of cooling. Thoughts?

Its like a talking parrot. It has a dozen memes and spits them out randomly repeatedly, never noticing when they have been debunked.

The cuteness is wearing off, and it doesnt seem to be able to learn any new things.
 
The next IPCC report due out on the 27th drastically lowers the projected warming over the next 100 years.



3G posted something that said the "prediction" for warming before 2100 was between 1 and 6.5 degrees.

With this kind of pin point precision, you have to wonder why anyone pays them.

You'd get better accuracy throwing darts at a board.
 
Must be a typo. Fixed it for you.

:2razz:



You have a real problem with changing the world to match your delusions.

Is this a defining characteristic of AGW Diehards?
 
While i'm sure you think you know what you are talking about, you might want to rely on real news sources and not denier websites for your info.

While I havent seen the IPCC AR5 report, this is what the NYT reports. The lower likeihood is down to 2.7 vs. 3 degrees in 2100. Thats pretty much not a 'drastic' change, and is similar to what we thought in IPCC AR 3. But now we are more certain it will happen, and the range could be quite a bit higher, which is very bad news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/s...driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?_r=1&




Why are the predictions of the highest certainty in this charade always those that have not yet passed into history.

Those that we can actually check against the real world performance are always wrong. It is an unblemished record of failure.

At least there is constancy.
 
3G posted something that said the "prediction" for warming before 2100 was between 1 and 6.5 degrees.

With this kind of pin point precision, you have to wonder why anyone pays them.

You'd get better accuracy throwing darts at a board.

Actually, I didnt. But this post does point out (rather dramatically) your lack of understanding of confidence intervals and standard deviations. Not that we didnt suspect before...
 
Not only have transient climate response and equilibrium climate sensitivity ranges been reduced overall, as you noted above, but the likelihood of their upper boundaries being experienced have also been reduced.

Your article states that the bottom range of ECS was changed from 3.6 to 2.7, not 3 to 2.7. That's a 30% reduction, again, not minimal.



The chances that we even hit a 1 degree increase in our planet's temperature by 2100 is fading on a daily basis.

Full NPR Interview Transcript: NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Not Sure That Global Warming Is A Problem | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference
 
Is the idea that global warming is being caused by humans some world wide conspiracy? It's not just scientists in the United States who overwhelmingly accept it, but an overwhelmingly majority of the entire scientific community accepts it.

I'm pro-science. I'm not a scientist, however, but when an overwhelming majority of scientists say something is true, I accept it.

Evolution is true. The world is not just a few thousand years old. Smoking cigarettes are in fact harmful.

Being pro-science is a good thing.



The stated cause of the warming is increasing and the temperature is decreasing.

What is the deduction justified by these facts?
 
It tells me that the permafrost might be a feedback mechanism that will make AGW that much worse.

But then again, I listen to scientists, not weathermen and nutjob conservatives.



What do the scientists tell you about the current cooling?
 
Its like a talking parrot. It has a dozen memes and spits them out randomly repeatedly, never noticing when they have been debunked.

The cuteness is wearing off, and it doesnt seem to be able to learn any new things.



When confronted by actual science and data, 3G always resorts to ad hom attacks.

Perhaps you could provide actual scientific data? One of your buddies here says you are a scientist.

The data says your stated cause is becoming more pronounced and your predicted effect is disappearing.

This might cause someone with the slightest bit of curiosity to question the dogma. How about you?
 
Actually, I didnt. But this post does point out (rather dramatically) your lack of understanding of confidence intervals and standard deviations. Not that we didnt suspect before...



So you are saying that the range of prediction was something different than that?
 
I can't seem to find a university in the USA that offers a degree in Climatology. Can you?

Nope, nothing so direct.. Because the science behind it cannot be quantified into a single discipline. Add in the fact it is entirely made up of best-guesses, based on unproven and as of yet un-quantifiable theory and concepts, and one can see why. No one of any true scientific worth and means is willing to set parameters and requirements or educational recommendations on such a system. Even education admistrators know better, and they give degrees for just about anything these days..

LOL, degrees in things such as; Sustainable Developement, and other such nonsense are all the rage on smaller campuses these days. Had to take my oldest around to colleges last year and have to do it again this year for my middle child. All kinds of degrees that will be effectively useless if AGW theory as well as all those UN recommendations do not take hold soon..

And that, sadly, is one of the biggest problems this age of pseudo-science and theory posed as fact has brought about.
 
Sustainable development. Whooo, that's crazy.

I bet you steer your children into much more useful classes like 'ignoring Science 101', and 'Knuckle Dragging 203' or 'Pretending to Know Things 112'.
 
Sustainable development. Whooo, that's crazy.

I bet you steer your children into much more useful classes like 'ignoring Science 101', and 'Knuckle Dragging 203' or 'Pretending to Know Things 112'.

Goofs, your incessant trolling and personal attacks tell all we need know about you.. If you must now my oldest is curently set on a degree in Psychology. My middle child is set on Engineering. Both of which are not members here, and do not desire nor need your abusive rantings...

Speaking ill of people you do not know, much less my family, is crossing the line.. Want to troll? Fine troll me or other members. But attacking family members who do not frequent here is uncalled for.. Grow up before you go to far.
 
Goofs, your incessant trolling and personal attacks tell all we need know about you.. If you must now my oldest is curently set on a degree in Psychology. My middle child is set on Engineering. Both of which are not members here, and do not desire nor need your abusive rantings...

Speaking ill of people you do not know, much less my family, is crossing the line.. Want to troll? Fine troll me or other members. But attacking family members who do not frequent here is uncalled for.. Grow up before you go to far.

Actually, a close reading would tell you that I'm making fun of you. But hiding behind your children is in character. Nice.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cease the personal attacks.
 
American extremists are pretty well everyone over there who writes posts about 'Obama' (and its racist variations), 'liberals' and your ludicrous popguns - ignorant nutters to a swivel-eyed man! You could add all the bilge-merchant's who rant ignorantly about 'socialism' (meaning capitalist government) and that grotesque American-nutter speciality 'race'. There are more signs, but that'll do for now.

Phew ! What a relief I'm Scottish and not American then. It could have been even worse for me though because I might have been born a Welsh racist bigot instead :roll:
 
The stated cause of the warming is increasing and the temperature is decreasing.

What is the deduction justified by these facts?

You don't get it.

Let me repeat - I'm not a scientist. However, I am aware that an overwhelming majority of the scientist community says that humans are a major cause of global warming.

I accept science for what it is. Therefore, I accept that man has contributed greatly to global warming.

So, either science says that global warming is caused by humans, or there is a vast worldwide conspiracy.
 
Back
Top Bottom