Do republicans realize how alone they are on the issue of global warming?

[konradv]

All the while, climate scientists are baffled as to why there is a 20 year stall in temperature increases and observation is deviating beyond the margin of error in the models.

You're cherry-picking a quote from A scientist. I'd wager the vast majority aren't baffled. This is just the flip side of when the deniers incorrectly claimed that proponents ignored natural cycles. Now the deniers are ignoring them, because it's no longer convenient. They were wrong in the first place and are now compounding the error by becoming hypocrites.

"Cherry picking".."Taking out of context"
You libs have an excuse for everything.
BTW, the 'denier' label is not longer valid. So stop using this meaningless term. Nobody cares about your side's labeling.

I'll use the label, if I like. You don't seem to have problem calling AGW a religion, despite the fact that it isn't. My label certainly more accurate or aren't you denying that man is the cause of warming or at least the increase in energy-absorbing CO2?

If you don't like my "excuses", counter them with relevant facts, not "well this happened in the past". The past can only be used as a template for the future, if underlying conditions haven't changed. We know that isn't true, as man emits more CO2 into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal YEAR!!!

 

[mamooth]

"Cherry picking".."Taking out of context"
You libs have an excuse for everything.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"
-- Homer Simpson, reciting the denialist creed.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Because the claim from the revisionists has been that CO2 drives temperatures. The sceptics have maintained that all the rising temps were natural variation. The Vostock ice core data shows that CO2 LAGS temperature by hundreds of years and the revisionists have twisted themselves up in knots trying to explain away that fact...and then they resorted to trying to revise that historical record.

The computer models have ALL failed to address the flat temps. On the other hand the solar cycle theories of global warming show a 100% correlation between global temperature going all the way back for 1,500 years......and no data falsification was neccessary to show that.

SCIENCE syas that AGW is a fraud. There is not one single shred of empirical data that supports it. Not one...just those fevered, failed, computer models.

Googled Vostock Ice Core:

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.



The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

See what I mean by twisting themselves in knots trying to obscure the Vostock data. Then they go and admit that the cycles are long....too long for anything man can do to have an effect...but they gloss right over that. Oh yeah, see that little word there....?..."could".

"Could" allows them to say a lot of things that are meaningless but you all just pant when you see that word. The problem is that is also the word of choice used by psychics. Who have a better track record of prediction just for the record....

The AGW theory is untestable as they have created it...that makes it pseudo-science.

Soo you don't believe science but do...just certain science like the Vostock Ice core findings and what YOU believe they mean....but don't believe what science says it means because...you don't want to?

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're cherry-picking a quote from A scientist. I'd wager the vast majority aren't baffled. This is just the flip side of when the deniers incorrectly claimed that proponents ignored natural cycles. Now the deniers are ignoring them, because it's no longer convenient. They were wrong in the first place and are now compounding the error by becoming hypocrites.

"Cherry picking".."Taking out of context"
You libs have an excuse for everything.
BTW, the 'denier' label is not longer valid. So stop using this meaningless term. Nobody cares about your side's labeling.

I'll use the label, if I like. You don't seem to have problem calling AGW a religion, despite the fact that it isn't. My label certainly more accurate or aren't you denying that man is the cause of warming or at least the increase in energy-absorbing CO2?

If you don't like my "excuses", counter them with relevant facts, not "well this happened in the past". The past can only be used as a template for the future, if underlying conditions haven't changed. We know that isn't true, as man emits more CO2 into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal YEAR!!!

Stomping your feet and screeching "I'M RIGHT" does not change the facts.
There is no denial because there is no, repeat NO scientific conclusion that any climate change or anomaly is caused by human activity.
There is not even any empirical evidence that is conclusive to the point where an independent panel of scientists can state with their reputations on the line that humans are causing undue influence on the Earth's climatic cycles.
So let's get to the point here. For a moment, let us stipulate human activity does have at least SOME influence to the extent that it creates climatic anomalies, my question to you is , what are you going to do about it? What can government do about it?
And suppose for a moment, government creates new taxes, bureaucracy and regulations to the detriment of our economy such that millions of jobs are lost and what's left of our manufacturing base moves off shore, what say you then?...Mind you that not one single idea coming from Washington does a SINGLE THING to stop whatever it is you people are claiming.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Cherry picking".."Taking out of context"
You libs have an excuse for everything.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"
-- Homer Simpson, reciting the denialist creed.

A cartoon character?
This is the best you can do?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're cherry-picking a quote from A scientist. I'd wager the vast majority aren't baffled. This is just the flip side of when the deniers incorrectly claimed that proponents ignored natural cycles. Now the deniers are ignoring them, because it's no longer convenient. They were wrong in the first place and are now compounding the error by becoming hypocrites.

"Cherry picking".."Taking out of context"
You libs have an excuse for everything.
BTW, the 'denier' label is not longer valid. So stop using this meaningless term. Nobody cares about your side's labeling.

I'll use the label, if I like. You don't seem to have problem calling AGW a religion, despite the fact that it isn't. My label certainly more accurate or aren't you denying that man is the cause of warming or at least the increase in energy-absorbing CO2?

If you don't like my "excuses", counter them with relevant facts, not "well this happened in the past". The past can only be used as a template for the future, if underlying conditions haven't changed. We know that isn't true, as man emits more CO2 into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal YEAR!!!

75% CO2 emissions increase since 1970, temperature increases stall for 20 years.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Once again you 're proving this is all a political exercise on the deniers' part. You love to throw around epithets, hoping we'll ignore the fact that CO2 and other gases actually do absorb IR radiation. Regardless of how many "carbon sinks" there are, they aren't infinite. The fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, should be concerning to anyone that has a vaguest handle on the science.

so konrav, give us the baseline of how much co2 the Earth should have, how much nitrogen, how much oxygen, what the temp is supposed to be......You do realize that at one time oxygen killed animals and then they "evolved" to use it.....

Is a Planetary Cooling Spell Straight Ahead? NASA: We May Be On the Verge of a ?Mini-Maunder? Event. | Global Research


All climate scientists agree that the sun affects Earth’s climate to some extent. They only disagree about whether or not the effect form the sun is minor compared to man-made causes

Again I love this, the sun effects the climate to some extent, do you really believe that man has more of an impact on the climate than the sun? REALLY????????

You're trying to compare things that happened over million to billions of years to something that's been happening over last few hundred. It's not simply a matter of whether something has happened before, but how fast. When there was no oxygen, there weren't any humans either. When things happened rapidly in the past there were mass extinctions.

No one is saying that man has to have more effect than the sun to make a difference. If I drive my car down a hill, my speed may increase 10-20 mph and exceed the speed limit. That could be enough to get me a ticket, but wouldn't change the fact that the engine was the major contributor to my speed. I'm afraid just saying the sun is the leading factor and nothing else matters, doesn't meet the logic test.

Sure it does, because lots of things have more impact than humans, the moon, volcanoes, ect

We had a mini ice age in the 1500s- 1700s.....

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But again Konrav, I'll believe all this stuff, when the people telling me about it, practice what they preach. you really blieve Al Gore is worried about the environment, when he has a far larger carbon footprint then you or I will ever have combined?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I wish someone would show where anyone suggested that the earth would get warmer every year or 2 or 10 so that I can laugh with Take a step

 

[konradv]

so konrav, give us the baseline of how much co2 the Earth should have, how much nitrogen, how much oxygen, what the temp is supposed to be......You do realize that at one time oxygen killed animals and then they "evolved" to use it.....

Is a Planetary Cooling Spell Straight Ahead? NASA: We May Be On the Verge of a ?Mini-Maunder? Event. | Global Research


All climate scientists agree that the sun affects Earth’s climate to some extent. They only disagree about whether or not the effect form the sun is minor compared to man-made causes

Again I love this, the sun effects the climate to some extent, do you really believe that man has more of an impact on the climate than the sun? REALLY????????

You're trying to compare things that happened over million to billions of years to something that's been happening over last few hundred. It's not simply a matter of whether something has happened before, but how fast. When there was no oxygen, there weren't any humans either. When things happened rapidly in the past there were mass extinctions.

No one is saying that man has to have more effect than the sun to make a difference. If I drive my car down a hill, my speed may increase 10-20 mph and exceed the speed limit. That could be enough to get me a ticket, but wouldn't change the fact that the engine was the major contributor to my speed. I'm afraid just saying the sun is the leading factor and nothing else matters, doesn't meet the logic test.

Sure it does, because lots of things have more impact than humans, the moon, volcanoes, ect

We had a mini ice age in the 1500s- 1700s.....

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But again Konrav, I'll believe all this stuff, when the people telling me about it, practice what they preach. you really blieve Al Gore is worried about the environment, when he has a far larger carbon footprint then you or I will ever have combined?

This isn't about any given individual. Focusing on Gore just proves to me this about the politics, not the science.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I wish someone would show where anyone suggested that the earth would get warmer every year or 2 or 10 so that I can laugh with Take a step

Are you fucking serious?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I wish someone would show where anyone suggested that the earth would get warmer every year or 2 or 10 so that I can laugh with Take a step

Are you fucking serious?

Yeah, clue me in. I like to laugh too.

 

[mamooth]

But again Konrav, I'll believe all this stuff, when the people telling me about it, practice what they preach. you really blieve Al Gore is worried about the environment, when he has a far larger carbon footprint then you or I will ever have combined?

Why are you fixated on Al Gore? It appears like you consider him to be a sort of deity.

Your fixation on people instead of science is a classic symptom of the cult follower, the way you demonize an opposition figure on command. It's like the 2-minutes hate directed at Emmanuel Goldstein. You don't see anyone here on the rational side talking about Al Gore. He's not a scientist, so nobody gives a shit about him. It's only the denialist political cranks who are strangely obsessed with Al Gore. You don't see the AGW rationalists ranting about personalities on the other side, because we simply "win" by pointing to the data.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I can't fix stupid, you'll have to ask someone else to try that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

But again Konrav, I'll believe all this stuff, when the people telling me about it, practice what they preach. you really blieve Al Gore is worried about the environment, when he has a far larger carbon footprint then you or I will ever have combined?

Why are you fixated on Al Gore? It appears like you consider him to be a sort of deity.

Your fixation on people instead of science is a classic symptom of the cult follower, the way you demonize an opposition figure on command. It's like the 2-minutes hate directed at Emmanuel Goldstein. You don't see anyone here on the rational side talking about Al Gore. He's not a scientist, so nobody gives a shit about him. It's only the denialist political cranks who are strangely obsessed with Al Gore. You don't see the AGW rationalists ranting about personalities on the other side, because we simply "win" by pointing to the data.

And the "data" and models, and predictions are wrong. So if by "winning" you mean being wrong, but getting funding anyway, then yes. You're winning the funding on failed models.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I can't fix stupid, you'll have to ask someone else to try that.

Cant find it? Because it seems really funny and if someone suggested warming happens every 10-20 or 30 years that Is funny.

Could you show me who did so I can openly mock them instead of you?

 

[ClosedCaption]

But again Konrav, I'll believe all this stuff, when the people telling me about it, practice what they preach. you really blieve Al Gore is worried about the environment, when he has a far larger carbon footprint then you or I will ever have combined?

Why are you fixated on Al Gore? It appears like you consider him to be a sort of deity.

Your fixation on people instead of science is a classic symptom of the cult follower, the way you demonize an opposition figure on command. It's like the 2-minutes hate directed at Emmanuel Goldstein. You don't see anyone here on the rational side talking about Al Gore. He's not a scientist, so nobody gives a shit about him. It's only the denialist political cranks who are strangely obsessed with Al Gore. You don't see the AGW rationalists ranting about personalities on the other side, because we simply "win" by pointing to the data.

Gotta make it personal, if they couldn't go personal they'd be stuck with things like information and facts.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I can't fix stupid, you'll have to ask someone else to try that.

Cant find it? Because it seems really funny and if someone suggested warming happens every 10-20 or 30 years that Is funny.

Could you show me who did so I can openly mock them instead of you?

The ICPP models indicate that warming should have occurred over the last 20 years. obeservation however, proved them wrong. You might want to mock them about it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

But again Konrav, I'll believe all this stuff, when the people telling me about it, practice what they preach. you really blieve Al Gore is worried about the environment, when he has a far larger carbon footprint then you or I will ever have combined?

Why are you fixated on Al Gore? It appears like you consider him to be a sort of deity.

Your fixation on people instead of science is a classic symptom of the cult follower, the way you demonize an opposition figure on command. It's like the 2-minutes hate directed at Emmanuel Goldstein. You don't see anyone here on the rational side talking about Al Gore. He's not a scientist, so nobody gives a shit about him. It's only the denialist political cranks who are strangely obsessed with Al Gore. You don't see the AGW rationalists ranting about personalities on the other side, because we simply "win" by pointing to the data.

Unreal....Al Gore was the leading spokesperson for this global warming/ climate change nonsense.
The guy made a friggin movie about it!
If anyone is responsible for the focus on Al Gore it is Al Gore!
Now that Gore has made is money off the issue and his sale of Current Tv to an OIL RICH nation, he is now in your side's eye's irrelevant and we are all just supposed to forget about him based on....YOUR say so?..Please.

 

[thereisnospoon]

But again Konrav, I'll believe all this stuff, when the people telling me about it, practice what they preach. you really blieve Al Gore is worried about the environment, when he has a far larger carbon footprint then you or I will ever have combined?

Why are you fixated on Al Gore? It appears like you consider him to be a sort of deity.

Your fixation on people instead of science is a classic symptom of the cult follower, the way you demonize an opposition figure on command. It's like the 2-minutes hate directed at Emmanuel Goldstein. You don't see anyone here on the rational side talking about Al Gore. He's not a scientist, so nobody gives a shit about him. It's only the denialist political cranks who are strangely obsessed with Al Gore. You don't see the AGW rationalists ranting about personalities on the other side, because we simply "win" by pointing to the data.

Gotta make it personal, if they couldn't go personal they'd be stuck with things like information and facts.

You should take swimming lessons. Because you are in canoe without paddle.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I can't fix stupid, you'll have to ask someone else to try that.

Cant find it? Because it seems really funny and if someone suggested warming happens every 10-20 or 30 years that Is funny.

Could you show me who did so I can openly mock them instead of you?

The ICPP models indicate that warming should have occurred over the last 20 years. obeservation however, proved them wrong. You might want to mock them about it.

No they didn't...You cant find it? Did you look under the couch cushion?