Global Warming Pie Chart

[ClosedCaption]

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

Discuss..

 

[Freewill]

Consensus is not always right. I just plowed 4 inches of global warming from my drive way.

Top 10 Science Mistakes : Science Channel

 

[ClosedCaption]

Consensus is not always right. I just plowed 4 inches of global warming from my drive way.

Top 10 Science Mistakes : Science Channel

Warming isnt weather...

You plowed snow from your driveway? This late in March? Sounds normal..

Are you shitting me? As evidence of why you distrust science you post a link that starts with this

You don't have to be a doctor to know how important the heart is…but back in ancient Greece, you could be a doctor and STILL have no idea how important the heart is.

Srsly? Ancient Greece?

 

[jwoodie]

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

Discuss..

Your racial postscript references undermine your credibility.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

AGW has been totally debunked... PERIOD.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

Discuss..

There used to be ice a mile deep in my backyard, where'd it go? LOL!

 

[WUN]

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog[/url]

Discuss..

That does look overwhelming, but what you have to take into account is who did the 13,950 and who did the 24. Then there is the question regarding what/how much data gathering did each study use. Which of those were actually done by climatologists vs. studies done by scientists in fields other than climatology.

That being said, I have little to no doubt there is global warming and that at least some of it is due to man-made causes. However, your pie chart proves absolutely nothing conclusively. IMHO I'd say that deforestation has just as much to do with 'man-made' contributions to global warming as the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

Discuss..

the chart looks strikingly similar

to the consensus that the world was flat

and that the sun circled the earth

and the hell to pay if you disagreed with the consensus

--LOL

 

[Avorysuds]

NASA proved GW stopped 16 years ago... What more is needed to be debated on the subject? Man had little to nothing to do with it getting warmer, science have proven that countless times.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The AGW Hypothesis Proven False Per Latest Data: Climate Sensitivity To CO2 Emissions Likely Very Low

A high climate sensitivity to growing human CO2 emissions is absolutely essential to the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW or AGW) hypothesis - the climate empirical evidence refutes the high sensitivity claim though.

In climate science reality, the actual global temperature observations over the last 15 years do not support the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis.

Central to the CAGW hypothesis is that increasing human CO2 emissions will raise atmospheric levels of this greenhouse gas. Subsequent to the atmospheric CO2 increase, global warming will automatically and consistently increase.

Once the globe starts warming, the AGW hypothesis states that a high climate sensitivity to CO2 will initiate a dangerous positive feedback loop: the rising temperatures will increase water evaporation; the powerful atmospheric greenhouse gas water vapor will then increase; then global temperatures will increase even more, the melting of ice sheets occurs; thus, less solar energy will be reflected into space; and global temperatures will then increase even more; and etc., etc.


This powerful and relentless positive feedback loop will produce unequivocal, robust, significant, unprecedented, irrefutable, rapid and accelerating global warming. At least that is what every "expert" climate model based on the CAGW hypothesis predicted.


But did the above prediction/scenario/forecast happen? Nope, not even close. In fact, the opposite happened.


The adjacent chart depicts the last 30 years of increasing CO2 levels and global temperature trends. This actual climate evidence is sliced into two time periods: the 15 years ending July 1997 and the 15 years ending July 2012. The real world evidence reveals the following:

C3: The AGW Hypothesis Proven False Per Latest Data: Climate Sensitivity To CO2 Emissions Likely Very Low

 

[Dragonlady]

Screaming Eagle links to a climate change denial website, which posts a link to a study which is self -published by the author on an domain owned by the author of the study, as proof positive that these thousands of peer reviewed studies have been scientifically debunked.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Screaming Eagle links to a climate change denial website, which posts a link to a study which is self -published by the author on an domain owned by the author of the study, as proof positive that these thousands of peer reviewed studies have been scientifically debunked.

Global warming is great, it ended the last ice age.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Screaming Eagle links to a climate change denial website, which posts a link to a study which is self -published by the author on an domain owned by the author of the study, as proof positive that these thousands of peer reviewed studies have been scientifically debunked.

Global warming is great, it ended the last ice age.

good point

--LOL

 

[tjvh]

All that chart means is that 24 people didn't get Taxpayer funded Grants.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Screaming Eagle links to a climate change denial website, which posts a link to a study which is self -published by the author on an domain owned by the author of the study, as proof positive that these thousands of peer reviewed studies have been scientifically debunked.

Global warming is great, it ended the last ice age.

good point

--LOL

These warmists act like the planet has always been the same temperature.
Or that the temperature at this point in history is somehow perfect and shouldn't/can't change.
Or won't, if we all use wind energy and twisty bulbs.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Global warming is great, it ended the last ice age.

good point

--LOL

These warmists act like the planet has always been the same temperature.
Or that the temperature at this point in history is somehow perfect and shouldn't/can't change.
Or won't, if we all use wind energy and twisty bulbs.

--LOL

true

look how long they pushed the hockey stick

until it busted

who is to say it is not better when it is warmer then colder anyhow

 

[ClosedCaption]

I thought someone would've debunked this by now. Only thing that's been said is "it snowed today" + "how do we know they're right? Maybe they aren't" and in some circles observing today's weather plus questions rising from ignorance equals debunking.

It's like a child saying "oh yeah, well if Elephants are so fast then why are they fat?"

 

[jon_berzerk]

I thought someone would've debunked this by now. Only thing that's been said is "it snowed today" + "how do we know they're right? Maybe they aren't" and in some circles observing today's weather plus questions rising from ignorance equals debunking.

It's like a child saying "oh yeah, well if Elephants are so fast then why are they fat?"

sort of like saying

leaves fall off the trees in the fall

children return to school in the fall

children returning to school cause the leaves to fall

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought someone would've debunked this by now. Only thing that's been said is "it snowed today" + "how do we know they're right? Maybe they aren't" and in some circles observing today's weather plus questions rising from ignorance equals debunking.

It's like a child saying "oh yeah, well if Elephants are so fast then why are they fat?"

"how do we know they're right?

More like, how do we know they're right and why should we spend trillions and give the government more power, to reduce warming by 0.2 degrees in 2080?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I thought someone would've debunked this by now. Only thing that's been said is "it snowed today" + "how do we know they're right? Maybe they aren't" and in some circles observing today's weather plus questions rising from ignorance equals debunking.

It's like a child saying "oh yeah, well if Elephants are so fast then why are they fat?"

"how do we know they're right?

More like, how do we know they're right and why should we spend trillions and give the government more power, to reduce warming by 0.2 degrees in 2080?

Well, considering that thousand of scientist agree while that doesnt prove they are correct...it's a lot more convincing than the 24 that disagree. If you are looking to cause reasonable doubt thats fine. But 24 vs thousands isnt a good start.

To answer your question is to err on the bad side of the what if?
What if humans can have an impact on the earth?
Your answer would be: Do nothing
My answer would be: Do something

You might ask why? Well, if we do nothing the planet that we live on could be adversly affected. what happens to the water also happens to the ppl. That is bad. What if we did something! Well, if we do something the planet that we live on could be affected less by our actions.

Seems like a good bet to take, wouldnt you agree?