2014 was World's Warmest Year on Record

[Alate_One]

I guess this is another one of those threads where Alate posts a couple of pretty pictures and then runs for the hills when confronted with evidence.

You mean the evidence I posted and you failed to post?

Pretty pictures in this case are graphs, and representations of temperature deviations from normal averaged over a year.

But you know, if anyone heads for the hills with data . . . it's you. :chuckle:

Complain about "pretty pictures" but heavens don't discuss what they actually show. :chuckle:

Which means it "must do" a whole raft of stuff that would make taxes about 1,000 percent of each person's income?

Cause that's ever happened in any modern country.

Necessary in the same way that four minus two equals two.

You can't add tax and say it does not remove spending power.

But taxes that are then used as subsidies cycle in the economy to create more spending power. It's called the multiplier effect. Taxes aren't a black hole for money.

 

[Stripe]

You mean the evidence I posted and you failed to post?

Evolutionists hate reading.

Pretty pictures in this case are graphs, and representations of temperature deviations from normal averaged over a year.

Yep. And the conclusion drawn from the pretty pictures is highly suspect.

But you know, if anyone heads for the hills with data . . . it's you. :chuckle:

Evolutionists love tu quoque arguments.

Complain about "pretty pictures" but heavens don't discuss what they actually show. :chuckle:

Evolutionists hate reading.

Cause that's ever happened in any modern country.

I don't think you adding confusion to the Moon King's poorly parsed reasoning is going to help at all.

But taxes that are then used as subsidies cycle in the economy to create more spending power. It's called the multiplier effect. Taxes aren't a black hole for money.

Nope. They are always a necessary drain.

Simply entropy necessitates that.

 

[OCTOBER23]

ZOO22 - THANKS

Come to Canada and be a Cool Guy.

 

[Stripe]

 

[OCTOBER23]

STRIPE

THAT DAY IS COMING

ALL ELSE IS CASTLES BUILT IN THE AIR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV8IU0ln3MA

 

[User Name]

Spoiler

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

 

[Stripe]

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

However, there were in fact scientists who said these things. No matter how much effort you want to put into distancing yourself from them.

 

[User Name]

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."

 

[rexlunae]

Which means it "must do" a whole raft of stuff that would make taxes about 1,000 percent of each person's income. lain:

No, not really.

Sounds like something an evolutionist would believe.

No doubt it does.

Necessary in the same way that four minus two equals two.

You can't add tax and say it does not remove spending power.

You don't remove spending power for the economy as a whole. You move it from one place, and put it in another.

Nope. Not the sun, and within a couple of hundred generations.

Nope, not worried about that even a little.

 

[rexlunae]

Spoiler

 

[jgarden]

I notice a tag on this thread which reads 'science denial'.

Sorry, but global warming is rank assumption that the Left stands by for it's ability to be a corrupt Robin Hood. The scientific community makes a killing off of it, why would they disagree :sigh:

Climate change sceptics assert that the scientists of the world are engaged in a massive international conspiracy.

They would have us believe that the earth's atmosphere can withstand being used as an "open sewer" indefintely without suffering negative effects!

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe does the denier dance:
However, there were in fact scientists who said these things. No matter how much effort you want to put into distancing yourself from them.

For example:
Denier claim:
"Back in the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming. They thought the world was getting colder. But once the notion of global warming was raised, they immediately recognized the advantages. Global warming creates a crisis, a call to action. A crisis needs to be studied, it needs to be funded..." author Michael Crichton wrote in his controversial anti-climate change novel State of Fear.

A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html

If the deniers have to resort to lying about what scientists said, isn't it a pretty good indication of how reliable their arguments are?

And yes, there probably are some deniers who didn't make this dishonest claim. But I can't find one.

 

[genuineoriginal]

A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html

If the deniers have to resort to lying about what scientists said, isn't it a pretty good indication of how reliable their arguments are?

And yes, there probably are some deniers who didn't make this dishonest claim. But I can't find one.

I see the carbon taxers like to hide facts inside of fantasy.
Out of the 44 papers, how many actually predicted anthropogenic global warming due to changes in the atmosphere?
How many predicted anthropogenic global warming due to other causes?
How many predicted non-anthropogenic global warming?
How many implied global warming? (a fancy word used for the reviewers' confirmation bias at work)
How many provided supporting evidence for global warming? (actually, this number means nothing, since the papers did not actually deal with global warming at all)

Yes, the reviewers have provided a summary of the papers which is nothing more than the same hot air that they always spout.

 

[Stripe]

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."

Evolutionists love rabbit trails and arguments from popularity.

You don't remove spending power for the economy as a whole. You move it from one place, and put it in another.

Nope. Just as lengthening an eletrical cable means more power is necessarily lost to the environment, so too does redistribution of funds necessarily decrease the overall spending power.

Simple entropy at work.

Nope, not worried about that even a little.

Didn't think so.

Evolutionists hate evidence.

 

[aikido7]

Science is NEVER "settled" !!!

That's what keeps it alive and current.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

The same process is now happening in Christianity. The contradictions and the discrepancies in the Bible will soon result in the entire system in a profound change.

 

[Stripe]

Science is NEVER "settled" !!

Tell it to the Warmists. :thumb:

The same process is now happening in Christianity. The contradictions and the discrepancies in the Bible will soon result in the entire system in a profound change.

Showing clearly that you are not a Christian.

 

[The Barbarian]

I see the carbon taxers like to hide facts inside of fantasy.

There's no point in denying it. The claim that most scientists thought we were heading for cooling is a lie. Even in the 1970s, most scientists were aware that warming was more likely.

G.O. tries a bunny trail to save his story:

Out of the 44 papers, how many actually predicted anthropogenic global warming due to changes in the atmosphere?

Doesn't matter. The study only debunked the denier claim that most scientists thought the Earth was going to cool.

Your guys just lied about that. Never happened.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Study torpedoes the denier claim that most scientists feared cooling in the 1970s)

Stipe attempts a bunny trail:

Evolutionists love rabbit trails and arguments from popularity.

You're upset because scientists debunked your argument from popularity. The supposed consensus you claim to have existed, is a hoax.

Just as lengthening an eletrical cable means more power is necessarily lost to the environment, so too does redistribution of funds necessarily decrease the overall spending power.

Simple entropy at work.

Last time I remember you addressing entropy, you thought it meant, "everything becomes disordered."

 

[genuineoriginal]

Out of the 44 papers, how many actually predicted anthropogenic global warming due to changes in the atmosphere?

Doesn't matter. The study only debunked the denier claim that most scientists thought the Earth was going to cool.

I know it doesn't matter to you if the carbon taxers post lie after lie in a vain attempt to debunk the predictions that everyone knows about because they made the cover of TIME magazine.

The so-called 44 papers that the reviewers claim could possibly be interpreted as providing some tangential support to the global warming theory never made it to the general population through major media, did they?

 

[aikido7]

Tell it to the Warmists. :thumb:

First, convince the thermometers and measurements. Liberalism tends to be biased on the side of facts, evidence and data.

Showing clearly that you are not a Christian.

Your attempt to see the state of my soul is not working. You have no idea what or who I am unless you ask me directly and respectfully.