This video should have Twilight Zone background music.
Go to about 1:50.
Actually says "the oceans will begin to boil" at about 2:12. ()
I don't know if it's being "misused" so much as it is being blocked from publication.
Hypothetical question: If humans ceased emitting CO2 tomorrow, what do you suppose the climate would do after that? Not trying to be facetious.
This video should have Twilight Zone background music.
Go to about 1:50.
Actually says "the oceans will begin to boil" at about 2:12. (
Last edited by DarrinS; 04-13-2012 at 04:33 PM.
I see you continue to miss relavant points.
Please remember something very important. Correlation does not equal causation. This is a major failing of the AGW crowd.
Cherry picking:
According to the IPCC AR4, trend for 1750 to 2004 = ~ 0.7 C. Using their sensitivity numbers for delta T:Any trend depends heavily upon the choice of start and end points. A judicious selection of such points for can create a wide variety of trends. For example, according to the annual average temperatures from Britain's CRU:
trend for 1900-2006 = 0.72 °C/century
trend for 1945-2006 = 1.05 °C/century
trend for 1975-2006 = 1.87 °C/century,
Calculated increase in temperature from solar changes 1750 to 2004 = ~ 0.5 C.
Calculated increases in temperature from BC emissions 1750 to 2004 = ~ 0.1 C.
What's left for CO2? What other variables are there?
It depends on if they took all variables into proper account or not. Have you seen any that do critical analysis of solar and BC changes?
Keep in mind, that's exactly what the AGW crowd does with every peer reviewed paper from skeptics.
Not with those astrophysicists,various climatologists, geologists and polar scientists but hey its easier to make up for the whole.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 04-13-2012 at 05:08 PM.
Nice attempt at the I know you are but what I am routine. I posted a link that analyzed the authors of your list of AGW skeptic articles and this is what they found:
See there is something to substantiation what RG asserts. Now where is your justification? Posting more Hansen Youtubes does not do that although I bet that is what we get.At the end of this process, though, I could at least start to have Needle give us some more-definite answers. Needle can do a lot of interesting analytical things, but pretty much all analysis begins with counting. Christian thought the top 10 authors contributed 186 of the papers. Needle's query now shows 200. Christian discovered that #3 author Bruce Kimball's 28 papers were all co-authored with #1 author Sherwood Idso. I saw so many connections that I had Needle calculate a Six Degrees of Sherwood Idso rating, which shows that 308 of these papers can be connected to Idso through just co-authorship of things listed here.
In fact, by clustering all the papers into sets linked by co-authorship chains, we found that the 973 articles on the list come from just 329 groups of authors, again only considering connection chains revealed by these papers, so some of these clusters might be further connected in the wider published space, or by real-world associations. Intriguing.
Cosmored, you have not answered my question.
Do you have the confessions or statements on the part of any significant number of the tens of thousands of scientists whose work is being misused by the "key players"?
That is not an answer to my question either. You cannot answer a question with a question. That is evasive. I will not answer your questions, if you do not answer mine. Fair is fair.
Assume yes, that they took all variables into proper account.
If this procress results in reviewed papers that support AGW, then what will your criticism be?
Will you accept that research?
Ad hominem.This video should have Twilight Zone background music.
Go to about 1:50.
Actually says "the oceans will begin to boil" at about 2:12. (
Mouse, your post is therefore rejected as logically flawed.
I have stopped counting your logically flawed arguments.
What does that say to you about the logical underpinning of your beliefs?
As far as I know, none of the climate scientists who don't fully accept climategeddon (a.k.a. "deniers") think that their science is being "misused".
It's not an argument. It's a video of a crazy person.
So what do you think will happen as the trend continues upwards. Its just going to be sunshine rainbows and girls in bikinis?
Trend hasn't done much in the last 14 years.
The insurance industry disagrees with you.
LOL...
I'm sometimes the same way, but honestly... without going back, I forget the question. Maybe I'll look back later, but not now.
If they took all the variables into proper account, i would be real interested in how they can still claim CO2 has as much of a warming effect as claimed. I would definitely be interested.
Please pick your line better.
I do not deny AGW. I deny the severity of AGW claimed.
Remember, the questionnaire that asks loaded questions? I would also be one to be in the top percentile that they turn around and spin as supporting AGW.
If they do use the more recent accepted levels of solar changes and BC changes... absolutely.
Do you know of any?
Same different day. How about some more about soot, ocean currents or your charts of 10 data points from a set of 10s of 1000s?
No .
The weather here has returned to like it was about 40 years ago.
The AGW gods that these lemmings worship simply took advantage of cycles that take decades to go through. I wonder how they plan to keep spinning it through this next decade.
No it hasn't see the above post. Like I said actuaries are taking notice despite energy lobby obfuscation because it impacts their bottom line.
Parts changer and historical climatologist all in one. What aspect of the weather has returned to some 40 year ago average? All of it?
I'm looking forward for the ENSO models coming out soon. I think its almost certain we'll see an El Nino develop this summer and when we do then you will likely see global surface temps that rival 2005 and 1998.
Pst, Darrin.
When you claim things that are false enough times do you start to believe them? Isn't that a mental condition?
I just don't understand how someone can say the trend is down for 13 years, when the warmest year on record for all temperature series is 2005. SMH
That about sums up my feelings towards those two.
Thats the exact MO they both use. Especially Darrin. Its only a matter of time before Darrin asks why it cooled in the mid 20th century...again.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
