Global warming and the end

[eclipsenow]

I knew you were not a high school drop out. But you have demonstrated that you have a level of scientific understanding on a par with a high school dropout. That is, practically zero.

Your entire knowledge of science is "peer reviewed scientists say...."

Do you have to have a degree in Cardiology to listen to your heart specialist, or a degree in car maintenance to listen to your mechanic, or a degree in Denistry to listen to your Denist...

 

[eclipsenow]

To everyone else: NASA's 62 years of warming in 14 seconds.

Watch 62 Years of Global Warming in 13 Seconds - YouTube

 

[Quantum Paradise]

That sounds like a worldview or political opinion. The absence of any peer-reviewed links to any scientific counter-theory whatsoever shows it to be just that.

The great irony is that global warming is what has caused the politicization of science, and nothing else.

Climate change may certainly be occurring, but I think we need to be honest and admit that there is no significant link between global temperature rise and CO2 emissions, i.e. human activity. The real concern, however, is solar activity, or should I say the lack thereof.

 

[Biblewriter]

Do you have to have a degree in Cardiology to listen to your heart specialist, or a degree in car maintenance to listen to your mechanic, or a degree in Denistry to listen to your Denist...

No, you don't. But you do have to have a certain amount of scientific knowledge to know who is presenting a rational argument and who is selling a snow job.

 

[eclipsenow]

The great irony is that global warming is what has caused the politicization of science, and nothing else.

Climate change may certainly be occurring, but I think we need to be honest and admit that there is no significant link between global temperature rise and CO2 emissions, i.e. human activity. The real concern, however, is solar activity, or should I say the lack thereof.

No, climate scientists do the science, Denialist's do the politicising, backed with funding by Exxon. It's quite simple really.

Oh, we need to be honest all right, and admit that there is a demonstrable carbon mechanism for trapping heat, and that today's temperatures are right on track with the repeatable, demonstrable physics of CO2. Solar has been pretty constant while temperatures rise. Sorry, you have no valid alternative theory behind the rising temperatures according to the peer-reviewed articles I'm reading!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

No, climate scientists do the science, Denialist's do the politicising, backed with funding by Exxon. It's quite simple really.

Oh, we need to be honest all right, and admit that there is a demonstrable carbon mechanism for trapping heat, and that today's temperatures are right on track with the repeatable, demonstrable physics of CO2. Solar has been pretty constant while temperatures rise. Sorry, you have no valid alternative theory behind the rising temperatures according to the peer-reviewed articles I'm reading!

I've seen peer-reviewed research which proved that smoking tobacco is harmless. It all depends on the statistical design (how much data massage is performed; and who the peers are that are doing the review (do they have any vested interests, if so what are they)

All one needs to do is see all of the medications/medical devices who's efficacy was not only proven and published in peer reviewed journals, but passed the scrutiny of our our Governments regulatory agencies; who gave licences to manufacture and market these.

Jump ahead a few years, and we see ads about these very same drugs and devices, the risks, and a contact number for class action law suits.

I hold Science in high regard; I hold Scientists and Statisticians in great suspicion until they prove themselves to be true professionals, and above reproach.

I see conflicting science from both the pro and con sides of this argument; my conclusion is that somebody's lying; maybe both sides are.

I've lived long enough to have seen conflict with what's been presented in this thread; so until I actually see tangible evidence (put my hand in the wound like St. Thomas), the science presented so far is hardly even worth a pinch of coon crap.

 

[eclipsenow]

I see conflicting science from both the pro and con sides of this argument; my conclusion is that somebody's lying; maybe both sides are.

I've lived long enough to have seen conflict with what's been presented in this thread; so until I actually see tangible evidence (put my hand in the wound like St. Thomas), the science presented so far is hardly even worth a pinch of coon crap.

I see science and non-science. Which particular anti-warming argument has you convinced it's not real science?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I see science and non-science. Which particular anti-warming argument has you convinced it's not real science?

I don't really buy any of it; less than 100 years of local records, less than 50 years of world-wide recording and reporting is a pitifully small sample in the light of eternity. If this "warming trend (and the sample is even too long to call it a trend)" lasts another thousand years, everywhere in the world, and we observe it, not only would we be able to confirm a "trend", but maybe we would have studied it long enough to see that there is a cause; either man made or God.

Until then, I reserve judgment; and i reserve the right to reject the theories of any scientists regarding this.

I do agree that the information you have presented may be the very best science available, but based on the data; it's the sample size that is too small, and the time frame too short which makes the "best science" that we have to day, woefully inadequate.

 

[eclipsenow]

I don't really buy any of it; less than 100 years of local records, less than 50 years of world-wide recording and reporting is a pitifully small sample in the light of eternity. If this "warming trend (and the sample is even too long to call it a trend)" lasts another thousand years, everywhere in the world, and we observe it, not only would we be able to confirm a "trend", but maybe we would have studied it long enough to see that there is a cause; either man made or God.

Until then, I reserve judgment; and i reserve the right to reject the theories of any scientists regarding this.

I do agree that the information you have presented may be the very best science available, but based on the data; it's the sample size that is too small, and the time frame too short which makes the "best science" that we have to day, woefully inadequate.

Well I'm glad you're not writing government policy on this.
"I'm too important to listen to you scientists!"

The irony, of course, is that the same 'smoking won't hurt you' guys are the same guys behind The Denial Machine, and convincing people like you not to accept the proven, demonstrable, repeatable physics of CO2 heat retaining properties. Ever hear of a Fourier device? Ever visit a physics lab and ask them to SHOW you how we know CO2 traps heat, and by how much? If not, I hardly think you're qualified to comment, let alone turn your back on the last 30 years of intense research and scientific endeavour.

The Denial Machine: brought to you by the same scientists you dismissed as cranks in your previous post! (CBC documents how the same guys are behind Climate Denialism).
Global Warming Debate : The Denial Machine - Watch Video : the fifth estate : CBC News

 

[Biblewriter]

I don't really buy any of it; less than 100 years of local records, less than 50 years of world-wide recording and reporting is a pitifully small sample in the light of eternity. If this "warming trend (and the sample is even too long to call it a trend)" lasts another thousand years, everywhere in the world, and we observe it, not only would we be able to confirm a "trend", but maybe we would have studied it long enough to see that there is a cause; either man made or God.

Until then, I reserve judgment; and i reserve the right to reject the theories of any scientists regarding this.

I do agree that the information you have presented may be the very best science available, but based on the data; it's the sample size that is too small, and the time frame too short which makes the "best science" that we have to day, woefully inadequate.

1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week

​

1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week | Climate Depot​

 

[eclipsenow]

1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week

1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week | Climate Depot​

Yes, in warming world there are some areas that experience colder temperatures. Guess what? The climatologists know why, have modelled it, and explained it. See
Catalyst: Extreme Weather - ABC TV Science


As Lucious Fox (Wayne's science advisor, Batman Begins) might say: Didn't you get the memo?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week

​

1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week | Climate Depot​

I'm sure our friend and his Scientists would dismiss this as anomalies.

 

[eclipsenow]

I'm sure our friend and his Scientists would dismiss this as anomalies.

Not 'anomalies', but an inevitable result of a warming planet! Are you going to spend 20 minutes watching this like a man, or just stick your fingers in your ears and run away screaming "No no NOT HAPPENING!" like a child? This is Australia's leading science program, and sums up what the climatologists are saying. Go for it. Watch it, then do your worst... once you actually understand what the claims are!

Catalyst: Extreme Weather - ABC TV Science

 

[Quantum Paradise]

No, climate scientists do the science, Denialist's do the politicising, backed with funding by Exxon. It's quite simple really.

Last time I checked, it is the ones pushing the global warming story and the need for things such as carbon taxing who are also the same ones pouring vast amounts of resources into getting these goals accomplished. What politicizing are "denialists" doing? We hear all the time about the "reality" of global warming and what we "need to do" from the political arena, yet according to you it's the denialists who are doing the politicizing?

Oh, we need to be honest all right, and admit that there is a demonstrable carbon mechanism for trapping heat, and that today's temperatures are right on track with the repeatable, demonstrable physics of CO2.

Ok...so you state the obvious without comment to what I even said? I know how CO2 works.

Solar has been pretty constant while temperatures rise. Sorry, you have no valid alternative theory behind the rising temperatures according to the peer-reviewed articles I'm reading!

Solar activity has everything to do with Earth's climate, ever heard of the mini-ice age scientists are apprehensive of? I was not attributing it to global warming, just mentioning a tangential issue that is also a concern.

 

[eclipsenow]

Last time I checked, it is the ones pushing the global warming story and the need for things such as carbon taxing who are also the same ones pouring vast amounts of resources into getting these goals accomplished. What politicizing are "denialists" doing? We hear all the time about the "reality" of global warming and what we "need to do" from the political arena, yet according to you it's the denialists who are doing the politicizing?

The Koch Brothers & Their Amazing Climate Change Denial Machine - YouTube

Ok...so you state the obvious without comment to what I even said? I know how CO2 works.

Then why deny that fact? Why deny the scientific findings?

Solar activity has everything to do with Earth's climate, ever heard of the mini-ice age scientists are apprehensive of? I was not attributing it to global warming, just mentioning a tangential issue that is also a concern.

Solar has been consistent and fairly unchanged while the earth has been warming. Also, the warming is noticable at night and during the winter, not really properties we can blame on the sun, hey?

There are some shorter term solar cycles, but these do not account for the longer term warming.

In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

 

[Biblewriter]

The Koch Brothers & Their Amazing Climate Change Denial Machine - YouTube



Then why deny that fact? Why deny the scientific findings?

We do not deny the scientific findings. We deny the lies being told by those that have a vested interest in global warming.

Solar has been consistent and fairly unchanged while the earth has been warming.

This is a flat put lie, As I demonstrated a long time ago in this thread.

 

[eclipsenow]

We do not deny the scientific findings. We deny the lies being told by those that have a vested interest in global warming.



This is a flat put lie, As I demonstrated a long time ago in this thread.

Do you want to rephrase that or I'll bring the moderators? I'm not lying, I'm saying that this is my honest understanding of the peer-reviewed solar experts. The earth is warmer at NIGHT and in WINTER and this means the sun is not causing it. The heat must be trapped by some 'mysterious' force...

Apart from its very mild cycles (influencing micro-climate trends) the sun has been rather constant in output over the the last century, and that's the century in question because that's when the temperatures REALLY HAVE been rising.

Seriously, dude, if you went to a cardiologist for heart surgery and they told you you didn't need it, but a little herbal tea and accapuncture would solve it, would you trust them? 97% of your other medical consultations are saying you need a triple bypass, but this guy just stares you down and recommends HIS herbal tea solution and accapuncture service.

Who are you going to trust?

It's not a numbers game either. If anyone is lying, it's the Denialists when they make all these RIDICULOUS cherrypicking claims or outright LIES themselves! I've seen it, and I'm just downright dirty on the way they once fooled me into questioning the science. I was taken in by the top 6 of their lies presented in the "Great GLobal Warming Swindle" movie by Durkin, and what a bunch of codswallop it is.

97% of climatologists agree that CO2 is to blame, that the sun's behaviour is mostly known and that the math does not add up for blaming the sun for the very real warming the earth has experienced in the last 60 or so years. But you're still pushing the 'herbal tea' and 'accupuncture' of apathy by blaming climate change on something else, something completely unmainstream,... the sun. Well good for you. I for one will not be drinking your coolaid!

(This from a random dude on the internet that says "Trust me, I've got an old map that disproves science!" or "Trust me, I've got a bunch of numbers and I CANNOT prove where I got them! I could have downloaded them from ANYWHERE... but they really DO disprove climate science... just trust me..." ) Yeah, sure thing pal! Mum's the word. Mum's the WORD!

 

[Biblewriter]

Do you want to rephrase that or I'll bring the moderators? I'm not lying, I'm saying that this is my honest understanding of the peer-reviewed solar experts.

The lie I was referring to was not your lie it was a lie being circulated bt the global warming pseudo-scientists. That lie is that the earth is getting warmer.

The earth is warmer at NIGHT and in WINTER and this means the sun is not causing it. The heat must be trapped by some 'mysterious' force...

Apart from its very mild cycles (influencing micro-climate trends) the sun has been rather constant in output over the the last century, and that's the century in question because that's when the temperatures REALLY HAVE been rising.

Seriously, dude, if you went to a cardiologist for heart surgery and they told you you didn't need it, but a little herbal tea and accapuncture would solve it, would you trust them? 97% of your other medical consultations are saying you need a triple bypass, but this guy just stares you down and recommends HIS herbal tea solution and accapuncture service.

Who are you going to trust?

It's not a numbers game either. If anyone is lying, it's the Denialists when they make all these RIDICULOUS cherrypicking claims or outright LIES themselves! I've seen it, and I'm just downright dirty on the way they once fooled me into questioning the science. I was taken in by the top 6 of their lies presented in the "Great GLobal Warming Swindle" movie by Durkin, and what a bunch of codswallop it is.

97% of climatologists agree that CO2 is to blame, that the sun's behaviour is mostly known and that the math does not add up for blaming the sun for the very real warming the earth has experienced in the last 60 or so years.

If you want to use the number 97%, I will not challenge it, although I feel it is exaggerated. But then those who call themselves climatologists have incomes based on "toeing the line" on the global warming codswollop.

Your earlier claim was that all scientific institutions accepted it. That is demonstrably wrong.

But you're still pushing the 'herbal tea' and 'accupuncture' of apathy by blaming climate change on something else, something completely unmainstream,... the sun. Well good for you. I for one will not be drinking your coolaid!

No, I am reminding you that I have already presented proof, right here in this thread, and with data actually published by the United States government, that the alleged 'warming trend" is fraudlent.

(This from a random dude on the internet that says "Trust me, I've got an old map that disproves science!" or "Trust me, I've got a bunch of numbers and I CANNOT prove where I got them! I could have downloaded them from ANYWHERE... but they really DO disprove climate science... just trust me..." ) Yeah, sure thing pal! Mum's the word. Mum's the WORD!

You an mock the old map, but you cannot get rid of it, and I told you exactly where the numbers came from. The fct that the gobal warming people deleted it is only further proof of the fraud.

So the lurkers can decide whether to believe a "random dude" with a reasoned argument or a different random dude who has demonstrated that he does not understand even the basics of the science under discussion.

 

[Quantum Paradise]

The Koch Brothers & Their Amazing Climate Change Denial Machine - YouTube



Then why deny that fact? Why deny the scientific findings?


Solar has been consistent and fairly unchanged while the earth has been warming. Also, the warming is noticable at night and during the winter, not really properties we can blame on the sun, hey?

There are some shorter term solar cycles, but these do not account for the longer term warming.

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

I just finished explaining that I was not attributing solar activity to global warming, I don't really understand why you reiterate this point again?

Let me clearly define it here.

I only contest the extent to which humans are accused of causing global warming.

I am not denying climate change.

 

[eclipsenow]

The lie I was referring to was not your lie it was a lie being circulated bt the global warming pseudo-scientists. That lie is that the earth is getting warmer.

The top 3 databases on the planet say you're wrong, and ONCE AGAIN I have to remind you that you obviously clicked on a particular State's statistics. It's not MY fault you can't establish where you got those numbers and I'm sick and tired of pointing this out to you! You're just entirely too stubborn with entirely unsubstantiated claims (old maps that show the top of Australia and a bunch of random numbers). It's not only a weak argument, it's pathetic.