Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[Frannie]

1970 is irrelevant why even go there?

Again why not run your graph back to when the glaciers melted. Are you dumb enough to believe that it was not warming when the ice age began to end as it is still ending now.

Lol u r funnypoo

Still ignoring that there was 2000 feet thick ice in New Jersey 20000 years ago.

PS the earth ends in 11 years anyway so why do you care

I know about the ice, stupid. Try not to wet your pants.

Angry that the worlds glaciers melted beginning 20000 years ago are we

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.

Bwhaaaaaaaaaa...

And the predictive ability of your model is what? Zero... indicating those who built your model do not understand the system they tried to model. IE; Predictive failure

 

[Frannie]

Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.

Of course it does...all you have to do is look at the sea level reconstructions...and archeological data regarding metropolitan areas and villages that existed within the past 10, 000 years which are now beneath a lot of water. That water came from melting ice....and a lot of it. Of course, it wasn't just from canada and the US...the ice also melted back from most of northern europe and china as well.

This is the reconstruction data I referenced...all one need do is look at the onset of sea level rise starting about 20K years ago and continuing through about 8000 years ago to see that a great deal of ice melted. What other data might you be referencing that would tell you how thick the ice was? We can certainly see where glaciers were, and we know that the ground that was covered by ice is still rebounding from the weight...but it is the sea level increase that actually tells us how much ice actually melted...Over 100 feet of sea level increase..that takes a great deal of ice...and more than was simply covering canada and the northern US.

Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?

None at all.

Not sure what your point is...are you thinking that I am a warmer wacko who believes in climate pseudoscience?

Sorry, my whole point flew right over your head...unfortunate...but it is clear that you are making something out of a point that you didn't understand that makes no sense. You clearly haven't read any of my posts if you think I subscribe to AGW...you are clearly speaking from a position of ignorance regarding my position...never a good idea....you end up looking stupid....as you do now suggesting that I in any way subscribe to either the radiative greenhouse hypothesis or the AGW hypothesis...

You might do just the tiniest bit of research in the future before you go about making baseless accusations...

The fact is that the world covered itself in glaciation that began melting 20000 years ago. With no help from humans.

Nothing you can babble or copy and paste will change this

Do you read anything? Are you out of your f'ing mind...I am one of the biggest skeptics f AGW on this forum...and when the hell did I ever claim that the glaciers didn't start melting 20,000 years ago...if you were bright enough to actually read the graph I just provided to you, you would see that it shows that the glaciers started melting about 20,000 years ago...

If you aren't bright enough, or interested enough to actually look at the data and make sense of it, you are no better than wackos like cosmos who bases his opinion not on science but his politics...a skeptic who doesn't grasp the sceince is just another believer....you just believe something different.

I am skeptical because the science demands that I be...my position isn't based on any sort of belief...get a clue...

Again glaciers began melting 20000 years ago. My claim backed by science

Seems to bother u

Doesn't bother me at all...in fact the graph I provided for you is some of the science that proves that the ice started melting about 20,000 years ago and you might have recognized that fact if you weren't such an idiot...

Still trying to con yourself.... keep up you might succeed one day

 

[Frannie]

Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.

Bwhaaaaaaaaaa...

And the predictive ability of your model is what? Zero... indicating those who built your model do not understand the system they tried to model. IE; Predictive failure

Hey no picking on my idiot without permission.

Lol

Permission granted

 

[Billy_Bob]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

You have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance. The current warming trend began 20000 years ago

Of course anyone who has looked at the data knows that...The people who the thread was directed at don't...they apparently believe that global warming started in 1970 and that we are responsible...and I doubt that you could convince them otherwise...I simply asked for the physical data that supports their belief...

In either event, they are going to believe what they believe primarily because they are so uneducated, that they can't begin to examine the data and instead simply place their faith in someone who is on their side politically.

This really isn't for them...it is for the fence sitters who actually can look at information and form an informed opinion...they see the data...and they see the abject idiocy of those who believe in AGW, and the weakness of the "data" they present...it is good to be able to see how strong one side of an argument is and compare it to how weak the other is.

Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.

Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?

Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother

As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap

Laurentide Ice Sheet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Laurentide ice sheet)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Laurentide Ice Sheet was a massive sheet of ice that covered millions of square kilometers, including most of Canada and a large portion of the northern United States, multiple times during the Quaternary glacial epochs, from 2.588 ± 0.005 million years ago to the present.[1]

The last advance covered most of northern North America between c. 95,000 and c. 20,000 years before the present day and, among other geomorphological effects, gouged out the five Great Lakes and the hosts of smaller lakes of the Canadian Shield. These lakes extend from the eastern Northwest Territories, through most of northern Canada, and the upper Midwestern United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) to the Finger Lakes, through Lake Champlain and Lake George areas of New York, across the northern Appalachians into and through all of New England and Nova Scotia.

At times, the ice sheet's southern margin included the present-day sites of northeastern coastal towns and cities such as Boston and New York City and Great Lakes coastal cities and towns as far south as Chicago and St. Louis, Missouri, and then followed the present course of the Missouri River up to the northern slopes of the Cypress Hills, beyond which it merged with the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The ice coverage extended approximately as far south as 38 degrees latitude mid-continent.[2]

 

[SSDD]

Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.

Bwhaaaaaaaaaa...

And the predictive ability of your model is what? Zero... indicating those who built your model do not understand the system they tried to model. IE; Predictive failure

Check frannie out...she is as nutty as cosmos...she thinks I am an AGW believer...

 

[Frannie]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

You have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance. The current warming trend began 20000 years ago

Of course anyone who has looked at the data knows that...The people who the thread was directed at don't...they apparently believe that global warming started in 1970 and that we are responsible...and I doubt that you could convince them otherwise...I simply asked for the physical data that supports their belief...

In either event, they are going to believe what they believe primarily because they are so uneducated, that they can't begin to examine the data and instead simply place their faith in someone who is on their side politically.

This really isn't for them...it is for the fence sitters who actually can look at information and form an informed opinion...they see the data...and they see the abject idiocy of those who believe in AGW, and the weakness of the "data" they present...it is good to be able to see how strong one side of an argument is and compare it to how weak the other is.

Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.

Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?

Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother

As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap

Laurentide Ice Sheet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Laurentide ice sheet)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Laurentide Ice Sheet was a massive sheet of ice that covered millions of square kilometers, including most of Canada and a large portion of the northern United States, multiple times during the Quaternary glacial epochs, from 2.588 ± 0.005 million years ago to the present.[1]

The last advance covered most of northern North America between c. 95,000 and c. 20,000 years before the present day and, among other geomorphological effects, gouged out the five Great Lakes and the hosts of smaller lakes of the Canadian Shield. These lakes extend from the eastern Northwest Territories, through most of northern Canada, and the upper Midwestern United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) to the Finger Lakes, through Lake Champlain and Lake George areas of New York, across the northern Appalachians into and through all of New England and Nova Scotia.

At times, the ice sheet's southern margin included the present-day sites of northeastern coastal towns and cities such as Boston and New York City and Great Lakes coastal cities and towns as far south as Chicago and St. Louis, Missouri, and then followed the present course of the Missouri River up to the northern slopes of the Cypress Hills, beyond which it merged with the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The ice coverage extended approximately as far south as 38 degrees latitude mid-continent.[2]

They do not acknowledge that the ice age both grew and ended without fossil fuel emissions.

Which is why they never look past 1000 years back

 

[SSDD]

Of course it does...all you have to do is look at the sea level reconstructions...and archeological data regarding metropolitan areas and villages that existed within the past 10, 000 years which are now beneath a lot of water. That water came from melting ice....and a lot of it. Of course, it wasn't just from canada and the US...the ice also melted back from most of northern europe and china as well.

This is the reconstruction data I referenced...all one need do is look at the onset of sea level rise starting about 20K years ago and continuing through about 8000 years ago to see that a great deal of ice melted. What other data might you be referencing that would tell you how thick the ice was? We can certainly see where glaciers were, and we know that the ground that was covered by ice is still rebounding from the weight...but it is the sea level increase that actually tells us how much ice actually melted...Over 100 feet of sea level increase..that takes a great deal of ice...and more than was simply covering canada and the northern US.

The fact is that the world covered itself in glaciation that began melting 20000 years ago. With no help from humans.

Nothing you can babble or copy and paste will change this

Do you read anything? Are you out of your f'ing mind...I am one of the biggest skeptics f AGW on this forum...and when the hell did I ever claim that the glaciers didn't start melting 20,000 years ago...if you were bright enough to actually read the graph I just provided to you, you would see that it shows that the glaciers started melting about 20,000 years ago...

If you aren't bright enough, or interested enough to actually look at the data and make sense of it, you are no better than wackos like cosmos who bases his opinion not on science but his politics...a skeptic who doesn't grasp the sceince is just another believer....you just believe something different.

I am skeptical because the science demands that I be...my position isn't based on any sort of belief...get a clue...

Again glaciers began melting 20000 years ago. My claim backed by science

Seems to bother u

Doesn't bother me at all...in fact the graph I provided for you is some of the science that proves that the ice started melting about 20,000 years ago and you might have recognized that fact if you weren't such an idiot...

Still trying to con yourself.... keep up you might succeed one day

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[Cosmos]

Again why not run your graph back to when the glaciers melted. Are you dumb enough to believe that it was not warming when the ice age began to end as it is still ending now.

Lol u r funnypoo

Still ignoring that there was 2000 feet thick ice in New Jersey 20000 years ago.

PS the earth ends in 11 years anyway so why do you care

I know about the ice, stupid. Try not to wet your pants.

Angry that the worlds glaciers melted beginning 20000 years ago are we

I realize you're nothing but a sniveling little rat begging for attention here. You should understand from my graphs that is is entirely possible for shorter term climate trends to exist on top of the long term trend. Have we already reached the end of the inter-glacial period? Probably not. That does not preclude the existence of a comparatively short term and minor AGW trend that will probably all be over in the next 50 years anyway. And when it is over, the inter-glacial warming will continue.

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

You have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance. The current warming trend began 20000 years ago

Of course anyone who has looked at the data knows that...The people who the thread was directed at don't...they apparently believe that global warming started in 1970 and that we are responsible...and I doubt that you could convince them otherwise...I simply asked for the physical data that supports their belief...

In either event, they are going to believe what they believe primarily because they are so uneducated, that they can't begin to examine the data and instead simply place their faith in someone who is on their side politically.

This really isn't for them...it is for the fence sitters who actually can look at information and form an informed opinion...they see the data...and they see the abject idiocy of those who believe in AGW, and the weakness of the "data" they present...it is good to be able to see how strong one side of an argument is and compare it to how weak the other is.

Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.

Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?

Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother

As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap

Laurentide Ice Sheet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Laurentide ice sheet)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Laurentide Ice Sheet was a massive sheet of ice that covered millions of square kilometers, including most of Canada and a large portion of the northern United States, multiple times during the Quaternary glacial epochs, from 2.588 ± 0.005 million years ago to the present.[1]

The last advance covered most of northern North America between c. 95,000 and c. 20,000 years before the present day and, among other geomorphological effects, gouged out the five Great Lakes and the hosts of smaller lakes of the Canadian Shield. These lakes extend from the eastern Northwest Territories, through most of northern Canada, and the upper Midwestern United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) to the Finger Lakes, through Lake Champlain and Lake George areas of New York, across the northern Appalachians into and through all of New England and Nova Scotia.

At times, the ice sheet's southern margin included the present-day sites of northeastern coastal towns and cities such as Boston and New York City and Great Lakes coastal cities and towns as far south as Chicago and St. Louis, Missouri, and then followed the present course of the Missouri River up to the northern slopes of the Cypress Hills, beyond which it merged with the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The ice coverage extended approximately as far south as 38 degrees latitude mid-continent.[2]

They do not acknowledge that the ice age both grew and ended without fossil fuel emissions.

Which is why they never look past 1000 years back

Who is "they" you bloviating idiot?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

You have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance. The current warming trend began 20000 years ago

Of course anyone who has looked at the data knows that...The people who the thread was directed at don't...they apparently believe that global warming started in 1970 and that we are responsible...and I doubt that you could convince them otherwise...I simply asked for the physical data that supports their belief...

In either event, they are going to believe what they believe primarily because they are so uneducated, that they can't begin to examine the data and instead simply place their faith in someone who is on their side politically.

This really isn't for them...it is for the fence sitters who actually can look at information and form an informed opinion...they see the data...and they see the abject idiocy of those who believe in AGW, and the weakness of the "data" they present...it is good to be able to see how strong one side of an argument is and compare it to how weak the other is.

Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.

Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?

Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother

As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap

Laurentide Ice Sheet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Laurentide ice sheet)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Laurentide Ice Sheet was a massive sheet of ice that covered millions of square kilometers, including most of Canada and a large portion of the northern United States, multiple times during the Quaternary glacial epochs, from 2.588 ± 0.005 million years ago to the present.[1]

The last advance covered most of northern North America between c. 95,000 and c. 20,000 years before the present day and, among other geomorphological effects, gouged out the five Great Lakes and the hosts of smaller lakes of the Canadian Shield. These lakes extend from the eastern Northwest Territories, through most of northern Canada, and the upper Midwestern United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) to the Finger Lakes, through Lake Champlain and Lake George areas of New York, across the northern Appalachians into and through all of New England and Nova Scotia.

At times, the ice sheet's southern margin included the present-day sites of northeastern coastal towns and cities such as Boston and New York City and Great Lakes coastal cities and towns as far south as Chicago and St. Louis, Missouri, and then followed the present course of the Missouri River up to the northern slopes of the Cypress Hills, beyond which it merged with the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The ice coverage extended approximately as far south as 38 degrees latitude mid-continent.[2]

They do not acknowledge that the ice age both grew and ended without fossil fuel emissions.

Which is why they never look past 1000 years back

We understand this.. We also understand that the rates of change in CO2 and temperature far exceed current day changes. Another reason they refuse to look beyond the end of their 35 year long (warming by natural causes) noses..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.

Bwhaaaaaaaaaa...

And the predictive ability of your model is what? Zero... indicating those who built your model do not understand the system they tried to model. IE; Predictive failure

Check frannie out...she is as nutty as cosmos...she thinks I am an AGW believer...

She is one confused person... She cant see you agreeing with most of her assessment..

 

[Frannie]

You have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance. The current warming trend began 20000 years ago

Of course anyone who has looked at the data knows that...The people who the thread was directed at don't...they apparently believe that global warming started in 1970 and that we are responsible...and I doubt that you could convince them otherwise...I simply asked for the physical data that supports their belief...

In either event, they are going to believe what they believe primarily because they are so uneducated, that they can't begin to examine the data and instead simply place their faith in someone who is on their side politically.

This really isn't for them...it is for the fence sitters who actually can look at information and form an informed opinion...they see the data...and they see the abject idiocy of those who believe in AGW, and the weakness of the "data" they present...it is good to be able to see how strong one side of an argument is and compare it to how weak the other is.

Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.

Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?

Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother

As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap

Laurentide Ice Sheet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Laurentide ice sheet)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Laurentide Ice Sheet was a massive sheet of ice that covered millions of square kilometers, including most of Canada and a large portion of the northern United States, multiple times during the Quaternary glacial epochs, from 2.588 ± 0.005 million years ago to the present.[1]

The last advance covered most of northern North America between c. 95,000 and c. 20,000 years before the present day and, among other geomorphological effects, gouged out the five Great Lakes and the hosts of smaller lakes of the Canadian Shield. These lakes extend from the eastern Northwest Territories, through most of northern Canada, and the upper Midwestern United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) to the Finger Lakes, through Lake Champlain and Lake George areas of New York, across the northern Appalachians into and through all of New England and Nova Scotia.

At times, the ice sheet's southern margin included the present-day sites of northeastern coastal towns and cities such as Boston and New York City and Great Lakes coastal cities and towns as far south as Chicago and St. Louis, Missouri, and then followed the present course of the Missouri River up to the northern slopes of the Cypress Hills, beyond which it merged with the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The ice coverage extended approximately as far south as 38 degrees latitude mid-continent.[2]

They do not acknowledge that the ice age both grew and ended without fossil fuel emissions.

Which is why they never look past 1000 years back

Who is "they" you bloviating idiot?

Such anger from the sucker

Yo its snowing in the summer in Colorado

So much for al gore saying snow will be a rare event

He he he

 

[Frannie]

Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.

Bwhaaaaaaaaaa...

And the predictive ability of your model is what? Zero... indicating those who built your model do not understand the system they tried to model. IE; Predictive failure

Check frannie out...she is as nutty as cosmos...she thinks I am an AGW believer...

She is one confused person... She cant see you agreeing with most of her assessment..

Actually I bought apple Google and Raytheon

Play on con children

 

[justoffal]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

 

[Frannie]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

 

[Cosmos]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.

Correlation does NOT equal causation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

so, when you have a glass of ice, fill that glass with liquid, and the ice then melts, how bad is the spill?

Did you watch 60-minutes last night? Probably not, so for the not so willfully ignorant, take a gander at this link:

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitble natural events disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

 

[Billy_Bob]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.