Reply With Quote
Fuzzy mad
I have gone back and posted where you go back and forth and back again regarding warming. You know what I am talking about because I have been rubbing your face in it for the past several years now. You aren't that obtuse.
That is the benefit when you will say anything like a sophist piece of , you can always go back and cherry pick the quote that matches what you want to say because you have said it all before.
My question is are you going to be such the sophist asshole that you are going to try and act like you have not been trying to say that the warming stopped for the past several years and tried to frame the subject as such?
He really is full of himself.
And once again Darrin surrenders to unimaginative snark in place of substance. Fact is you have gone from telling us that there was no warming, there used to be warming but now its stopped, nah there was never warming, oh its warming but it doesn't matter anyway, nah its stopped warming, it never warmed but did you know I used to believe in AGW, or whatever else you think will give credence to your oil oligarch overlords interests.
Another word for such behavior is duplicity.
Whether or not I am mad is besides the point. the point here is you have no credibility on this subject and no one should take anything you say as having any worth.
teehee, pumpkin.
Wow. Nice meltdown. I think I'll express my own opinions, thankyouverymuch.
In terms of the warming trend of the 20th century and the lack of trend since 1998, I have no opinion. The data speaks for itself. Saying that it warmed in the 20th century by about 1 degree, AND that there's no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years or so, is completely consistent with the data.
Last edited by DarrinS; 02-26-2015 at 12:47 PM.
Seriously, would it hurt you to put in more than a few sentences?Why? [edit- for sake of clarity]... do the scientists who say that the CO2 emissions put out by human beings is causing warming?]
It wasn't a strawman argument, it was a request for clarification and understanding.
You stated that the scientists who claim there is AGW believe it, and I asked you why that is.
Either you can tell me what you think about that or not.
Since the thread is all about how self-professed sceptics are idiots and/or generally dishonest, your inability or unwillingness to answer a straight question, yet again, proves my point.
So, I will ask yet again, in an attempt to be fair and direct and understand your view point:
Why do the scientists who believe in AGW hold that belief? i.e. what do you think convinced them to believe?
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-wit...180305626.htmlWASHINGTON (AP) — Scientists have witnessed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere above the United States, chronicling human-made climate change in action, live in the wild.
A new study in the journal Nature demonstrates in real-time field measurements what scientists already knew from basic physics, lab tests, numerous simulations, temperature records and dozens of other climatic indicators. They say it confirms the science of climate change and the amount of heat-trapping previously blamed on carbon dioxide.
Researchers saw "the fingerprint of carbon dioxide" trapping heat, said study author Daniel Feldman of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. He said no one before had quite looked in the atmosphere for this type of specific proof of climate change.
Feldman and colleagues used a decade of measurements from instruments in Alaska and Oklahoma that looked straight up into the sky and matched what they saw with the precise chemical composition and heat fingerprints of carbon dioxide trapping heat. Scientists say carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas is the chief cause of global warming.
In doing so, the data show clouds, water vapor or changes in sun's radiation are not responsible for warming the air, as some who doubt mainstream climate science claim, Feldman said. Nor could it be temperature data being tampered with, as some contrarians insist, Feldman said.
"The data say what the data say," Feldman said. "They are very clear that the rising carbon dioxide is actually contributing to an increased greenhouse effect at those sites."
The study is good technical work, said climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University, but it is expected — sort of like confirming gravity with a falling rock.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7841324
If you knew the skeptics position, you wouldn't be asking silly questions.
In the climate change debate, people are labeled "skeptics" or "deniers", when they are really just non-alarmists.
I would not care to assume to speak for you, or assume your beliefs were congruent with others', I would rather you speak for yourself directly.
Fair enough.
Define "alarmism".
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14240.html
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
I would say it is the belief that there will be disaster if immediate action isn't taken to curb human CO2 emissions.
Does he go by Greg?
At least he's honest and acknowledges it as a religion!
But that "news" about Dr. Willie Soon is earth-shattering.
Greenpeace has been ing about that guy's funding since 2011
Using waybackmachine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110701...-Oil-and-Coal/
For some reason, the NYT decided recently to carry the torch (and pitchforks) for GP.
lol
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/2...climate-smear/
Why is action taken to limit CO2 emissions bad? Setting aside the issue of massive potential risks for a moment.
Sea level “jumps” 5 inches. Probably nothing to worry about
http://grist.org/climate-energy/sea-..._campaign=feed
Only 5 inches?Sea level “jumps” 5 inches. Probably nothing to worry about
http://grist.org/climate-energy/sea-..._campaign=feed
Whoop-t-do... Scooby doo...
Ahead of her time in 1998:
DarrinS dodges again.
I apologize to all you AGW deniers. Senator Inhofe has turned me around, AGW is a huge, conspiratorial hoax!
Senator Inhofe Disproves Climate Change — With A Snowball
http://www.nationalmemo.com/senator-...-%202015-02-27
If you pull up the whole video:I apologize to all you AGW deniers. Senator Inhofe has turned me around, AGW is a huge, conspiratorial hoax!
Senator Inhofe Disproves Climate Change — With A Snowball
http://www.nationalmemo.com/senator-...-%202015-02-27
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324568-...business&live=
That clip starts at 1:53:30. He goes on and mentions the 2014 warmest year, and having NASA backtrack when pressed to the 38% probable. He goes on about enumerating record low this winter.
I'm only at the 2 hr point, and he is still speaking of facts.
LOL...
Hockey stick now...
Still watching.
LOL...
Time, 1974 he mentions:
http://content.time.com/time/magazin...944914,00.html
Drought blamed because of the global cooling scare, now global warming...
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
