Actually,the world isn't warming

TimmyPage · Sep 28, 2008

Many of the charts of warming have shown that the fastest places to warm are the furthest up in the northern hermisphere.. trust me, even in Canada it's noticable. Global warming or not - something is messed up in the environment. By this time of year it's usually about 12-15, it's been 20-25 the past few weeks.

Last winter, there was a week in the middle where we could practically wear shorts, then the next week it was -20. Even more messed up, sometimes those two happened right next to each other: One day far too warm to be winter, then a sudden chill that had even the hardy Canadians complaining. We're messing with the environment, and the environment is messing back.

Greatcloud · Sep 28, 2008

Deamiter said:
Are you claiming that a website ABOUT collecting proxy data is the same as actually COLLECTING proxy data?

You said there was "proxy data from both sides." But only one side is actually doing any science and actually collecting data.

What side do you think those doing the collecting for submission to that site are on ? What do you think they are looking for ?

THERE ARE MANY SCIENTIST DOING THE WORK FOR THE SKEPTIC SIDE. fOR CRYING OUT LOUD YOU ARE BRAINWASHED THERE ARE MANY SCIENTIST WHO ARE SKEPTICAL THIS IS WHERE I GET MY DATA. I COULD NOT DO IT OTHERWISE.

Chalnoth · Sep 28, 2008

Greatcloud said:
What side do you think those doing the collecting for submission to that site are on ? What do you think they are looking for ?

THERE ARE MANY SCIENTIST DOING THE WORK FOR THE SKEPTIC SIDE. fOR CRYING OUT LOUD YOU ARE BRAINWASHED THERE ARE MANY SCIENTIST WHO ARE SKEPTICAL THIS IS WHERE I GET MY DATA. I COULD NOT DO IT OTHERWISE.

No, nearly all of your data is taken from work by scientists who wholly endorse global warming as both occurring and very likely caused by humans. The deniers then take that data and lie about it to attempt to say something that the data does not say.

Greatcloud · Sep 29, 2008

Chalnoth said:
No, nearly all of your data is taken from work by scientists who wholly endorse global warming as both occurring and very likely caused by humans. The deniers then take that data and lie about it to attempt to say something that the data does not say.

No there are two sides we have our own graphs and data which is mostly what I use. I can spot an Alarmist chart a mile away.

Chalnoth · Sep 29, 2008

Greatcloud said:
No there are two sides we have our own graphs and data which is mostly what I use. I can spot an Alarmist chart a mile away.

Then present the data.

Chalnoth · Sep 29, 2008

Just to add a little bit to this whole debate, anything about this hurricane report seem odd to any of you?
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/09/28/kyle.storm/index.html

Greatcloud · Sep 29, 2008

Chalnoth said:
Then present the data.

Here is proof that our side collects data.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415

Chalnoth · Sep 30, 2008

Greatcloud said:
Here is proof that our side collects data.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415

I'm sorry, what? Those scientists agree that global warming is occurring, and that it's likely caused by human emissions of CO2. How, precisely, are they on "your side"?

Greatcloud · Sep 30, 2008

Chalnoth said:
I'm sorry, what? Those scientists agree that global warming is occurring, and that it's likely caused by human emissions of CO2. How, precisely, are they on "your side"?

I can't believe your hubris and chutzpa both Spencer and Christy are emphaticaly skeptic. You show me where this is not true please. I believe GW is occuring and 2.5% is caused by man.

Deamiter · Sep 30, 2008

Lol -- you throw up a politically partisan "institute" as evidence? I might also note that they didn't collect any data... Sure, denialists like to make pretty charts, but how many are drilling ice cores, counting tree rings or examining varves?

Again, "your side" doesn't generally collect data. They don't often produce models, and they certainly don't make measurements!

Of course you could easily prove me wrong. Instead of showing a website claiming to tell how cosmic rays MIGHT affect clouds, show a study showing that cosmic rays DO cause clouds in the atmosphere. Sure, radiation can generate nucleation sites, but all the experimental data has shown that it's not significant in cloud formation.

Of course, do feel free to prove me wrong! Show me some skeptics that take data as you've claimed, not just pump out pretty graphs. I'm not saying that analyzing data isn't important, but you seem to think denialists collect proxy data (since you presented a site ABOUT proxy data in response to a claim that denialists DON'T collect proxy data). We're not saying there's no denialist claims INCLUDING proxy data as you seem to think -- we're showing that your specific claim that denialists COLLECT proxy data is bogus.

Deamiter · Sep 30, 2008

Greatcloud said:
I'm saying the bell curve of GW is on a downward fall after 10 years of leveling out. The bell curve is more like a rectangle while CO2 continues to rise temperature does not. Temperature has in fact dropped like a rock. We will still see GW for a while but the highs are very likely over.

This was our warm period or modern warming period bell curve says its over ; it was nice and warm huh, it over. I don't have to prove anything to you I posted hard scientific data/proof. Thats it its still true that is my proof and stand and I have every right to stand on it.

Do you want me to explain CRT and say more about it I would be glad to do so.

Do you understand what a Bell curve is? I don't think that term means what you think it means.

And by all means -- show not how radiation can create nucleation sites but how it DOES and with a significant effect in the atmosphere. Also, you might show even ONE reason why I should take your alleged correlation (with error bars of course!) to suggest causation.

Greatcloud · Sep 30, 2008

Deamiter said:
Lol -- you throw up a politically partisan "institute" as evidence? I might also note that they didn't collect any data... Sure, denialists like to make pretty charts, but how many are drilling ice cores, counting tree rings or examining varves?

Again, "your side" doesn't generally collect data. They don't often produce models, and they certainly don't make measurements!

Of course you could easily prove me wrong. Instead of showing a website claiming to tell how cosmic rays MIGHT affect clouds, show a study showing that cosmic rays DO cause clouds in the atmosphere. Sure, radiation can generate nucleation sites, but all the experimental data has shown that it's not significant in cloud formation.

Of course, do feel free to prove me wrong! Show me some skeptics that take data as you've claimed, not just pump out pretty graphs. I'm not saying that analyzing data isn't important, but you seem to think denialists collect proxy data (since you presented a site ABOUT proxy data in response to a claim that denialists DON'T collect proxy data). We're not saying there's no denialist claims INCLUDING proxy data as you seem to think -- we're showing that your specific claim that denialists COLLECT proxy data is bogus.

Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 599 individual scientists from 354 separate research institutions in 38 different countries ... and counting! This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week comes from Naja Lake, Lacandon Forest, Chiapas, Mexico. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.

You can see all the data here collected by skeptical scientists.

Chalnoth · Oct 1, 2008

Greatcloud said:
I can't believe your hubris and chutzpa both Spencer and Christy are emphaticaly skeptic. You show me where this is not true please. I believe GW is occuring and 2.5% is caused by man.

Haha! Read the interviews in the piece you linked.

Chalnoth · Oct 1, 2008

Greatcloud said:
Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 599 individual scientists from 354 separate research institutions in 38 different countries ... and counting! This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week comes from Naja Lake, Lacandon Forest, Chiapas, Mexico. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.

You can see all the data here collected by skeptical scientists.

Uh, why on Earth do you think that all of these scientists think global warming either isn't happening or isn't caused by mankind?

Deamiter · Oct 1, 2008

Greatcloud said:
Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 599 individual scientists from 354 separate research institutions in 38 different countries ... and counting! This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week comes from Naja Lake, Lacandon Forest, Chiapas, Mexico. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.

You can see all the data here collected by skeptical scientists.

Seriously, read your sources for comprehension! They don't collect data themselves, they search through other scientists' work and pick out the bits that agrees with their stated assumption -- that the warm period was warmer and longer than "alarmists" think.

your site said:
How is the project conducted?
As we discover new peer-reviewed scientific journal articles pertaining to the Medieval Warm Period, we briefly describe their most pertinent findings in the Study Descriptions and Results section of the project. The locations of all such studies are then plotted on a map of the globe, and the intervals of time they associate with the Medieval Warm Period are incorporated into a graph of the frequency distribution of all such time intervals, which is located just beneath the map in the project's Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot feature. In extremely rare cases where only a single year is specified for the MWP, we assign it a 100-year timespan centered on the year reported by the study's authors. For studies that allow the determination of an actual temperature difference between the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Current Warm Period (CWP), this number is incorporated into the frequency distribution of all such differentials in the project's MWP-CWP Quantitative Temperature Differentials section. For studies that allow only a qualitative determination of the temperature difference between the MWP and CWP to be made, results are presented in the project's MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials section. Last of all, the names of all scientists and research institutions associated with the MWP Project studies we cite are included in our List of Scientists Whose Work We Cite and List of Research Institutions Associated With the Work We Cite.

Greatcloud · Oct 1, 2008

Chalnoth said:
Uh, why on Earth do you think that all of these scientists think global warming either isn't happening or isn't caused by mankind?

Most of them not all are skeptics because they are contributing proxy data to prove a MWP.

Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 599 individual scientists from 354 separate research institutions in 38 different countries ... and counting! This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week comes from Naja Lake, Lacandon Forest, Chiapas, Mexico. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.

You can see all the data here collected by skeptical scientists.

Chalnoth · Oct 1, 2008

Greatcloud said:
Most of them not all are skeptics because they are contributing proxy data to prove a MWP.

That is a complete non-sequiter. First of all, the existence of a medieval warm period is completely and utterly besides the point when it comes to whether or not the current warming is man-made. The precise temperature of the Earth during that period is interesting, but in no way whatsoever impacts measurements of the causes of the current climate change.

So no, that a scientist argues for the existence of a medieval warm period in no way, shape, or form indicates that said scientist is a global warming denier.

The only people that you link to that I can be sure are deniers are those that are taking the MWP science out of context in a ridiculous attempt to show that it indicates the world isn't warming now, or that the current warming isn't caused by humans.

Greatcloud · Oct 1, 2008

Chalnoth said:
That is a complete non-sequiter. First of all, the existence of a medieval warm period is completely and utterly besides the point when it comes to whether or not the current warming is man-made. The precise temperature of the Earth during that period is interesting, but in no way whatsoever impacts measurements of the causes of the current climate change.

So no, that a scientist argues for the existence of a medieval warm period in no way, shape, or form indicates that said scientist is a global warming denier.

The only people that you link to that I can be sure are deniers are those that are taking the MWP science out of context in a ridiculous attempt to show that it indicates the world isn't warming now, or that the current warming isn't caused by humans.

Virtually nobody believes there is no GW . And now for something completely different :http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-6-skept.html
Please tell me what you think of this site it is fairly technical.

Chalnoth · Oct 1, 2008

Greatcloud said:
Virtually nobody believes there is no GW . And now for something completely different :http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-6-skept.html
Please tell me what you think of this site it is fairly technical.

It goes over the same discredited arguments.

Though I find it amusing that they claim that land use is a big effector of global climate. I don't doubt that it has some effect, but that's still anthropogenic global warming, still something that we can affect in an active way. The problem, however, is quantifying this contribution, and I don't think it holds a candle to the contribution from CO2, from everything I've read on climate science to date.

Greatcloud · Oct 1, 2008

Chalnoth said:
It goes over the same discredited arguments.

Though I find it amusing that they claim that land use is a big effector of global climate. I don't doubt that it has some effect, but that's still anthropogenic global warming, still something that we can affect in an active way. The problem, however, is quantifying this contribution, and I don't think it holds a candle to the contribution from CO2, from everything I've read on climate science to date.

Thank you for looking at this website.

Which of these graphs to you believe ?

Actually,the world isn't warming

Regular Member

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Member

I just follow Christ.

I just follow Christ.

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

I just follow Christ.

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency