:rotfl:
Post one then. When you can't find one anywhere, you'll realize you just assumed too much in your global warming cult :idunno:
Truth about climate change
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
:rotfl:
Post one then. When you can't find one anywhere, you'll realize you just assumed too much in your global warming cult :idunno:
CherubRam
New member
genuineoriginal
New member
sulfur dioxide is SO2, not CO2
CherubRam
New member
18 years, 9 months- no change in global temperature. You all rehash the same thing from 1997 :chuckle:
So you're wrong, ding dong.
CherubRam
New member
I do not like to use the word fool, but you are working over time. You must not looked at the chart.
Your link exposes that those who claim to be scientific experts are promoting a huge fallacy — argumentum ad populum. And they're not even subtle about it. When your leading "experts" rely on consensus so desperately, it shows that their claims of having evidence need to be carefully scrutinized.
CherubRam
New member
You are making things up and presenting it as the truth. Because you present no facts to back what you say, I presume that you are mentally ill.
The temperature data is from four international science institutions.
genuineoriginal
New member
The data is not the raw temperature data, but is "cooked" data from IPCC.
On top of that, the temperature data graph presented as fact was created in the same manner as the Fiji mermaid was, but connecting two different graphs together and claiming it is a single contiguous graph.
Nope. Your link touts the "97 percent" myth as if it is evidence. The popularity of an idea has no scientific significance when it comes to assessing the validity of an idea. To imply or assert that it does is called the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
Darwinists love this debate tactic. It's the only way they can stay in the discussion.
You could open the link and read it. :idunno:
:doh:
YOU MUST NOT HAVE LOOKED AT THE CHART!
Look closely, and after you've realized it, clock out- you're the one on overtime
CherubRam
New member
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Well, he's a real scientist, but that's a straightforward conspiracy theory he's peddling. He talks about three groups. But that's misleading. He places his group, the denialists (he calls them "skeptics"), on about equal footing with the mainstream, when in fact they are pretty marginal. And then he dishonestly casts a third group, politicians, environmentalists, and media as both uniformly alarmists. Of course, he didn't mention that you're far more likely to find a denialist in Congress, or on television than publishing a paper in a peer reviewed journal. But he also fails completely to mention the fossil fuel industry, which actively funds the work of people willing to challenge the scientific consensus, for fairly obvious reasons. And finally, he gives no consideration to the best way to handle conflicting scientific views.
18 years 9 months...gee, what an awfully specific interval of time you've picked. You wouldn't be cherry-picking the hottest year in recent times in order to make that claim, would you? Well, you're going to have to reset your cherry-picker after last year.
There's a difference between weather and climate. You all are the first one's to say it whenever others report Antarctica doubling in size or when a massive blizzard hits- but the hottest summer on record? Oh, that's different
How does that justify cherry-picking a year 18 years and nine months ago?
It's true, weather isn't climate, and a single incident can't prove climate change. When multiple incidents over a long period pile up together that are consistent with the climate predictions, then it starts to be real evidence of climate change. But AGW doesn't predict, in any sense, the end of blizzards, and while it does predict loss of glaciers, which is happening, it doesn't require that to occur uniformly everywhere. Some parts of the ice of Antarctica are growing, and some are disappearing. There are good indications that Antarctica may be net gaining ice mass, but then there is ice loss in other parts of the world, too. It's not uniform everywhere.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ld-stay-skeptical/?postshare=2541446754571422
https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
... but the hottest summer on record? Oh, that's different
One data point among many. And you know what? There's a good chance that 2016 will be cooler than 2015, just as 1998 was cooler than 1997. And it won't signify a change in the overall trend, unless quite a few other years line up first, and it doesn't look like that's likely to happen.
genuineoriginal
New member
It seems that climate means "weather associated with a region".
_____
climate
late 14c., "horizontal zone of the earth," Scottish, from Old French climat "region, part of the earth," from Latin clima (genitive climatis) "region; slope of the Earth," from Greek klima "region, zone," literally "an inclination, slope," thus "slope of the Earth from equator to pole," from root of klinein "to slope, to lean" (see lean (v.)).
The angle of sun on the slope of the Earth's surface defined the zones assigned by early geographers. Early references in English, however, are in astrology works, as each of the seven (then) climates was held to be under the influence of one of the planets. Shift from "region" to "weather associated with a region" perhaps began in Middle English, certainly by c. 1600.
climate
late 14c., "horizontal zone of the earth," Scottish, from Old French climat "region, part of the earth," from Latin clima (genitive climatis) "region; slope of the Earth," from Greek klima "region, zone," literally "an inclination, slope," thus "slope of the Earth from equator to pole," from root of klinein "to slope, to lean" (see lean (v.)).
The angle of sun on the slope of the Earth's surface defined the zones assigned by early geographers. Early references in English, however, are in astrology works, as each of the seven (then) climates was held to be under the influence of one of the planets. Shift from "region" to "weather associated with a region" perhaps began in Middle English, certainly by c. 1600.
That's a slightly simplistic definition for this context, but if you want a statement of the difference between climate and weather, I would suggest this: weather is what is happening at a particular time in a given place; climate is what we would expect to happen based on history. So "it will likely rain tomorrow" is a statement of weather, while "typically, it rains more here in February" is a statement of climate. Obviously, there is a relationship, but one weather event generally won't fundamentally change the climate.
Last edited:
They look for reasons and ways to support global warming since their original predictions were laughably errant. They look at irregular weather patterns and, instead of anything else, jump straight to global warming.
All the sources they present only show a rise up to almost two decades ago, where the temperature basically flat lined. Way out of character for what they proposed- it actually makes you wonder how accurate their statistics were in the first place- how much of it was just rank presumptionlain:
All the sources they present only show a rise up to almost two decades ago, where the temperature basically flat lined. Way out of character for what they proposed- it actually makes you wonder how accurate their statistics were in the first place- how much of it was just rank presumption
lain: