Yeah it's great how cherry picking one sentence from a report can dramatically alter the expected conclusion. It's almost like someone has an agenda to push, hmmmm.
I particularly like how the findings of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists is disregarded, UNLESS they say something that sounds like it matches up with your preconceived viewpoint. In that case, everything else they say is garbage apart from that one thing. Either you defer to people who are experts in the field, or you don't. You can't pick and choose.
Kinda like how Christians say the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, unless it opposes something they don't like (gays, abortion, etc).
Quote from: "BritishManwhore"
Yeah it's great how cherry picking one sentence from a report can dramatically alter the expected conclusion. It's almost like someone has an agenda to push, hmmmm.
I particularly like how the findings of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists is disregarded, UNLESS they say something that sounds like it matches up with your preconceived viewpoint. In that case, everything else they say is garbage apart from that one thing. Either you defer to people who are experts in the field, or you don't. You can't pick and choose.
Kinda like how Christians say the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, unless it opposes something they don't like (gays, abortion, etc).
WTF are you babbling on about.......like every other issue......if you want to know who is lying ....follow the money............once climate scientists discovered there was an unlimited supply of grant funding if they sided with the man made global warming gang, then it was no holds barred....you want a report saying the earth was warming, the polar bears dying, the glaciers melting...no problem our university needs a new science wing....ok here's the money.......it became a spiral to the bottom of the bowl, each bogus report outdoing the other.....until they got caught....now they are switching to phrases like "climate change" "sustainability" and other bullshit words to try and deflect their lack of integrity....it's too late...the jig is up...we know
Neither of you addressed my post, just went into a biased tirade haha. I don't have much of an opinion about climate change. I'm not a scientist and I'm guessing neither of you are. The idea that there is more money pushing climate change is probably the funniest thing I've read all day!
You really think university budgets compare with the biggest industry in the world? I don't know where coal and gas come in the rankings but they are probably also pretty high up there.
You didn't address my point tho. The report concludes that climate change is real. The sentence cherry picked in the article above doesn't change their conclusion. So why do you believe the wrong interpretation of that sentence, and disregard the rest of the report? There is logic to that, unless you're being deliberately misleading.
Quote from: "BritishManwhore"
Neither of you addressed my post, just went into a biased tirade haha. I don't have much of an opinion about climate change. I'm not a scientist and I'm guessing neither of you are. The idea that there is more money pushing climate change is probably the funniest thing I've read all day!
ya i guess you don't know a hell of a lot about the issue....and have little interest in learning...but really the funniest thing is people like you, who have an opinion on just about everything...with no knowledge to back it up......it is typical of your ilk and a pretty sad commentary on you personally .....if you want to discuss issues at least have the courtesy to pick up a newspaper or go online to educate yourself..........
Yeah I guess my problem is I believe scientists rather than conservative journalists. That's my bad I guess.
Quote from: "BritishManwhore"
Yeah I guess my problem is I believe scientists rather than conservative journalists. That's my bad I guess.
i don't know if it is your "bad" or not (whatever that is).... it means that when you read in the news or on the news that the climate mongers were caught lying and manipulating their data to alarm people /gvts. etc to raise funding from the hard core believers....and you still believe their data, what would you reasonably expect someone to think about your abilities to critically analyze an issue......i mean normally i would just call you a stupid cunt.....but this being the good forum i would merely encourage you to re-read the data available our there in the news universe....
Again, because some journalist framed it that way doesn't mean I'm going to listen to them, or you. There is a scientific consensus. No amount of nitpicking and twisting words is going to change that. You can keep calling me names though if you think it makes your case somehow.
Quote from: "BritishManwhore"
Again, because some journalist framed it that way doesn't mean I'm going to listen to them, or you. There is a scientific consensus. No amount of nitpicking and twisting words is going to change that. You can keep calling me names though if you think it makes your case somehow.
no your wrong...... i don't have a case to make.....the case is made....it is self evident........there can't be two people on the planet that think like Homero... so i presume you are posting under a new name....it is too much of a waste of my time dealing with one of you so austa la vista baby.....[attachment=0]smiley-toilet07.gif[/attachment]
The majority of people understand that global warming has been caused by man. One day you and Shen Li will too. Many deniers have finally accepted that the world is in fact warming.
Quote from: "Romero"
The majority of people understand that global warming has been caused by man. One day you and Shen Li will too. Many deniers have finally accepted that the world is in fact warming.
ok homy i will toss out the easiest softball for you.......so please give it an honest response:
daily you will hear the "global warming caused by man" (GWCBM) proponents make the following comments.....
this is the warmest it has been since 1889
most hurricanes since 1877
most tornadoes since 1822
most ice cap melting since 1450
you get the point...............my question is this.....
by virtue of the fact that this has been the worst since means by definition that it was worse before that date......that is irrefutable......how is that possible if there were no people and no industry way back when.....pls explain
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "BritishManwhore"
Yeah I guess my problem is I believe scientists rather than conservative journalists. That's my bad I guess.
You believe the scientists except for the thousands of scientists that know AGW is grossly exaggerated.
Western governments love sheeple like you. :lol:
Thousands of climate scientists think climate change is bullshit? Really? Where are these people, please point them out as presumably they have an organisation if they are that big
Ahhh so not thousands of climate scientists, just general ones who haven't studied it for decades like the experts. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of "scientists" who don't believe in evolution. Probably not that many evolutionary scientists tho.
Maybe your problem is you treat all sources as equal, whether they are a conspiracy theory journalist with phd in biblical studies, or a climate scientist who has devoted his life to his studies?
I am some place in the middle between the two extremes. Shen Li and Obvious Li are saying that the money trail is all on the proving global warming is totally man made which is not true. There is plenty of money "fuelling" the skeptic side too. On the other hand, BritishManwhore is saying that man is totally responsible for global warming and all scientists agree 100% on it's cause and solution which is equally misleading.
The op's article shows there are other causes of global temperature changes besides C02 produced by man. Also, this isn't the first time temperature has changed nor is it the most dramatic change. Rather than trying to stop climate change we should be learning to adapt to changing weather patterns. Trying to stop all fossil fuel usage globally is an exercise in futility.
I didn't say that at all
Quote from: "Obvious Li"
ok homy i will toss out the easiest softball for you.......so please give it an honest response:
daily you will hear the "global warming caused by man" (GWCBM) proponents make the following comments.....
this is the warmest it has been since 1889
most hurricanes since 1877
most tornadoes since 1822
most ice cap melting since 1450
you get the point...............my question is this.....
by virtue of the fact that this has been the worst since means by definition that it was worse before that date......that is irrefutable......how is that possible if there were no people and no industry way back when.....pls explain
There has always been natural climate change but current global warming is happening much more quickly, has no connection to anything natural and directly correlates with the rise in man-made greenhouse gases.
Nearly all climatologists, universities, national science academies and governments agree that global warming is caused by man.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Jeesh dude, you really are ignorant of this subject aren't you? Well that is the kind of blind allegiance big government, big business, big labour and big NGO's are counting on.
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Romero and his big NGO friends don't want to acknowledge there are dissenting voices.
Already seen and debunked. A mere 0.5% have any background in climatology and atmospheric science. Most of the "scientists" are surgeons, architects, engineers etc. Many names have been found to be fake.
Scientific American concluded: "The petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Rather than trying to stop climate change we should be learning to adapt to changing weather patterns. Trying to stop all fossil fuel usage globally is an exercise in futility.
We will try to adapt but we should be trying to at least lessen climate change. We're already seeing some major costs from the storms, droughts, sea level rise... and this is only the beginning.
The world's permafrost is just starting to melt, resulting in the release of large amounts of methane which causes much more warming than CO2. Once it really gets going, we're going to be in real trouble.
It's a known and scientific fact that the natural greenhouse gases in our atmosphere keep the Earth 33°C warmer than it would be without them. The less greenhouse gas, the cooler. The more the warmer.

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/2.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-cl%20...%20arge/2.jpg%22%3Ehttp://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/2.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
Since we began burning fossil fuels CO2 has gone up from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. It's off of the chart.
Quote from: "Romero"
The majority of people understand that global warming has been caused by man.
Completely unfounded , invented assertion.
Quote from: "Romero"
One day you and Shen Li will too. Many deniers have finally accepted that the world is in fact warming.
Muddlebrain can't even discern between different issues:
a)global warming
b) caused by man'[/list]
He just lumps two completely different issues into one , i.e. the one must by ideological necessity include the other.
And to suit his own leftist agenda he impudently asserts again , that clear thinking non-leftists deny both issues. This despite the fact hat Shen Li has clearly and unequivocally restated the scientifically proven fact that 'global warming is in flux' , i.e. has occurred many times over the life span of the earth. :roll: Just an other example how reality detached and self-contradictory these deluded simpletons are. :mrgreen:
Quote from: "Romero"
The majority of people understand that global warming has been caused by man.
I would hazard a guess, that most of the same understanding , majority of people have no clue about what 'anthropogenic' , 'red noise' and 'statistical fuzz' * means. Or climate models which are all computed with arbitrary , speak invented , data input ...to suit the outcome of desired results (which is of course very unscientific)
Most of the same understanding , majority of people also ignore the fact that there is a proven correlation between sunspot cycles and global warming. (Sunspots are not caused by man; except maybe in the phantasy world of hard core Leftists)
The same majority of understanding people also ignore the facts that
a) there is a time lag of a few hundred years between the interaction of carbon and rise in temperature
b) that global warming, according to the 'hockey stick graph', allegedly has really steeply shot up only since the 19th century ......that is , concomitantly with the industrial revolution
c) mankind reached the first billion around 1800
False logical conclusion to draw from above fallacious leftist assertion:
Since global climate change inevitably takes place hundreds of years after mankind has carbon polluted mother earth , it follows, that the mid 19th century global warming had been caused by man during the mid 16th century...... when there were only .9 billion people on earth...... and the wooden printing press had just been invented.
Ergo: to reverse today's having been caused by man global warming, mankind must reduce itself from 7 billion to less than 1 billion and live like it did in the 15th century. [/list]
True leftist thinking , N'est-ce-pas ?
*
'anthropogenic'= related to man.
The phenomena of global warming has been recognised since the early 1930 due to glacial melting in Switzerland.
The U.N.O. -sponsored invention of 'anthropogenic' causality came 50 years later ....
'red noise' or 'noise' are mathematical expressions being used in computer generated climate models, they signal improbablities.
'fuzz' or 'hair' are expressions used to describe uneven , broken or hairy waveforms , also used in graphs in climate models.
Quote from: "Romero"
.
Since we began burning fossil fuels CO2 has gone up from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. It's off of the chart.
See ???
See ???
He said the nonsense himself!
He forgot the time lag , but who cares ???
I don't have time to read all of that right now. The one thing I will cherrypick is this line, it would be many times cheaper to adapt ... than to attempt, futilely, to mitigate it today. That makes more sense to me too.