Evidence that global warming IS happening

Avalanche o' crap tactics, like Meister just used, are a sign of a helpless cut-and-paste parrot. Honest people can make a simple point. Cultists can't, because they stink at the science, and because all the data contradicts them. Hence they just fling massive amounts of shit in the hope that something sticks.

Outside of Meister's right-wing-kook political cult, denialism doesn't exist. That's because it's purely a political movement. The cultists don't care about the science, they only care about whatever helps them hate the liberals who stole their girl and took their lunch money and had all the fun.

In direct contract to Meister's political cult, AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, being that it's actual science.



Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ‘No Scientific Proof’ Climate Change Is Caused By Humans


Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, known as one of the co-founders of the activist group Greenpeace, has a history of sharply dissenting from policies supported by major environmental groups, including the one he helped create. Moore’s latest departure is to assert that climate change, particularly the gradual warming of Earth’s surface temperature over the last century, is not caused by humans.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Moore said during an appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday. “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”


Moore argued that the sophisticated computer models scientists use to predict patterns in global climate are “not a crystal ball.” He maintained that the claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that humans are “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century is bogus, given that the scale used to measure probability was constructed by IPCC members themselves.

“Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of ‘extreme certainty’ is to look at the historical record. …When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,” Moore argued.

Moore said this “fundamentally contradicts” the notion that man’s CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm.


--------------------------------------

The fact that mamooth is arguing that man made global warming is proof in itself that it is a global scam. Seriously, is there a dumber poster on this board? Rightwinger and truthmatters gives him a run for his money, but I think he takes the cake for the dumbest of all left wing hacks.

No offense.

i-d20729cf9e0d847cadd13df24cc9eedc-rodney-dangerfield-picture-01.jpg

You did notice that because he couldn't attack what was in my post, he attacked me. Just like what Abe did with Moore. Shows the lack of intellect from these goofballs.
 
1) Explain why 120/400ths of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide shows the isotopic signature of having originated in the combustion of fossil fuels?
2) Explain what happened to the carbon dioxide that man produced burning fossil fuels from the beginning of the industrial revolution to the present?
3) Explain what DID cause the unprecedented rate of warming we've experienced over the last 150 years if it wasn't Greenhouse Effect from all that carbon dioxide.
4) Explain why every instance in the paleoclimatic record, when increasing temperatures caused the liberation of carbon dioxide from natural sequestration, the temperature increase carried on beyond the end of the original forcing and tracked CO2 levels thereafter (See Shakun 2012).

Show us the PROOF you seem to believe the correct theory should sport. Not just evidence of yours, not just criticism of ours; I want to see PROOF of whatever the F you claim has actually been happening, even if your claim is that nothing has happened.
 
Last edited:
1) Explain why 120/400ths of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide shows the isotopic signature of having originated in the combustion of fossil fuels?
2) Explain what happened to the carbon dioxide that man produced burning fossil fuels from the beginning of the industrial revolution to the present?
3) Explain what DID cause the unprecedented rate of warming we've experienced over the last 150 years if it wasn't Greenhouse Effect from all that carbon dioxide.
4) Explain why every instance in the paleoclimatic record, when increasing temperatures caused the liberation of carbon dioxide from natural sequestration, the temperature increase carried on beyond the end of the original forcing and tracked CO2 levels thereafter (See Shakun 2012).

Show us the PROOF you seem to believe the correct theory should sport. Not just evidence of yours, not just criticism of ours; I want to see PROOF of whatever the F you claim has actually been happening, even if your claim is that nothing has happened.
Don't want to discuss what Moore stated, huh? I don't blame you, son. :eusa_whistle:
 
I've already told you why I have no interest in what Moore has to say on this topic or any other. The man is a sellout.

Would you like to discuss AR5? It has just a tiny bit more scientific validity than Moore's press release.
 
]I've already told you why I have no interest in what Moore has to say on this topic or any other. The man is a sellout.[/B]

Would you like to discuss AR5? It has just a tiny bit more scientific validity than Moore's press release.

The irony of this statement.

We have shown you who the sell outs are, and why the scientific community sells this man made global warming scam.

You are a funny hypocrite.
 
I've already told you why I have no interest in what Moore has to say on this topic or any other. The man is a sellout.

Would you like to discuss AR5? It has just a tiny bit more scientific validity than Moore's press release.

The man has blown you out of the water, you just don't know it, Abe.

The man was one of your own, he saw what this green movement was all about from the inside out and he left it because it just came down to politics not actual facts.
It's not rocket science, you just need to look at all the facts, not the cherry picked facts, son.
 
Moore has never been one of my own. I am not into cult mentalities. I respect properly done science and Moore has done NONE. On what research are his opinions based? What are his qualifications to make the pronouncements he's made? None and none.

AR5, on the other hand, is a summation of a tremendous amount of properly done science by properly educated scientists. Why do you seem to be shying away from it.
 
Now if only you could replace "Green Bay" with "Earth" it might mean something.
 
Abraham calls him a sell out. I just cannot get over the irony of that statement. Watch this....and see how he squirms his way explaining this.

According to the White House, the stimulus package funneled more than $90 billion in government funds and tax incentives towards “clean” energy, including $29 billion for energy efficiency, $21 billion for renewable energy generation, $6 billion for advanced batteries and parts for advanced vehicles and fuel technologies, and $2 billion in clean energy manufacturing tax credits to make wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, and other domestic clean energy equipment.

More spending on green energy may be down the road as the Brookings Institute reports that the federal government will spend more than $150 billion between 2009 and 2014 — three times as much as was spent between 2002 and 2008.



Recovery Act Fourth Quarterly Report - The Public Investment Provisions of the Recovery Act | The White House

A. Categories of Public Investment Spending
The Recovery Act funded a broad variety of programs. We have classified the public investment spending into 10 functional categories:

1. Clean Energy. A central piece of the ARRA is more than $90 billion in government investment and tax incentives to lay the foundation for the clean energy economy of the future. The CEA’s second quarterly report grouped these clean energy investments into eight sub-categories: $29 billion for Energy Efficiency, including $5 billion to pay for energy efficiency retrofits in low-income homes; $21 billion for Renewable Generation, such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels; $10 billion for Grid Modernization to develop the so-called “smart grid” that will involve sophisticated electric meters, high-tech electricity distribution and transmission grid censors, and energy storage; $6 billion to support domestic manufacturing of advanced batteries and other components of Advanced Vehicles and Fuels Technologies; $18 billion for Traditional Transit and High-Speed Rail; $3 billion to fund crucial research, development, and demonstration of Carbon Capture and Sequestration technologies; $3 billion for Green Innovation and Job Training to invest in the science, technology, and workforce needed for a clean energy economy; and about $2 billion in Clean Energy Equipment Manufacturing tax credits that will partner with private investment to increase our capacity to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, and other clean energy components domestically.13
 
What is your point? I see absolutely no relevance to Moore's comments? And what is it you think would make me squirm? That we're spending money trying to reduce our carbon emissions? I don't think we're spending enough. Is that squirmy enough for you?
 
What is your point? I see absolutely no relevance to Moore's comments? And what is it you think would make me squirm? That we're spending money trying to reduce our carbon emissions? I don't think we're spending enough. Is that squirmy enough for you?

Wow, it is more than just a little incredible, isnt it?
 
Moore has never been one of my own. I am not into cult mentalities. I respect properly done science and Moore has done NONE. On what research are his opinions based? What are his qualifications to make the pronouncements he's made? None and none.

AR5, on the other hand, is a summation of a tremendous amount of properly done science by properly educated scientists. Why do you seem to be shying away from it.

Shying away? Like the manipulated data from your cult, or those pesky emails between your cultists? What Moore stated has everything to do with your religion, he wasn't going to be part of the sham. These are red flags that would have woken up anyone who didn't have an agenda. But, your religion has an agenda.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, why are all the crazy people raving about Moore? They're not making a bit of sense. Though I get part of it, that they're a bunch of LSD-addled old hippies who still consider Moore to be one of their gurus. Outside of the denialist hippie crowd, nobody else heard of the guy or cares about him..

But then, if all the facts disagree with you, I suppose it makes a handy deflection. Denialists keep needing more and more of those deflections as time passes.
 
Last edited:
Moore stabbed Greenpeace in the back many years ago. His name has been anathema to the environmental movement for decades.
 
THE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING

WGI_AR5_Fig8-15.jpg


Note that hugely significant TSI factor

WGI_AR5_Fig8-17.jpg
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top