Jump to content

Poll: Americans Starting to Worry About Climate Change Now That It Affects Their Lawns


homersapien

Recommended Posts

CCBEqEEWgAAHJH5.jpg

wow, you really have no argument other than lame jokes, do you? All the better.

Heres the long term climate change graph. Enjoy

2r27p8i.jpg

Yeah, uh, about that graph. It wasn't made with a scientifically credible reconstruction. I'm going to start sourcing sks.

Composer99 at 13:37 PM on 22 November, 2012

...In addition I note two rather glaring errors in the Harris & Mann drawing:

- "Nomanic Time"?

- "Grecian Empire"?

Are there any sources justifying this terminology?

In addition, the Harris & Mann drawing lists its sources as:

Global temperature chart was complied by Climatologist Cliff Harris that combined the following resources:

"Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing.

"Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak

Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.

[bold & italics original.]...

http://www.skeptical...3&t=127&&n=1095

And regarding Cliff Harris:

https://www.metabunk...atologists.617/

So again, no proof to contradict...only argument is to tear down a source (which I have already gone over with multiple other sources). Its getting really pathetic in here. It is a scientific FACT that the earth goes through temperature cycles....Any recollection of ice ages, great floods, deadly droughts in history books? Oh, thats right, the new liberals didnt get to those facts and change them before printing so they must all be lies!!! Its really sad watching our country turn to idiots that refuse to accept anything that doesnt prove their point. I guess next you'll tell me Jesus never existed and the pyramids were built by aliens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Global Warming Solution: Government should take over the energy sector and control every aspect of our lives

Global Cooling Solution: Government should take over the energy sector and control every aspect of our lives

Climate Change Solution: Government should take over the energy sector and control every aspect of our lives

Same solution for all of these should tell you something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Victor Davis Hansen

California is not suffering one drought, but four. Each is a metaphor of what California has become.

Nature

The first California drought, of course, is natural. We are now in the midst of a fourth year of record low levels of snow and rain.

Californians have no idea that their state is a relatively recent construct — only 165 years old, with even less of a pedigree of accurate weather keeping. When Europeans arrived in California in the 15
th
and 16
th
centuries, they were struck by how few indigenous peoples lived in what seemed paradise — only to learn that the region was quite dry on the coast and in the interior.

Today, modern Californians have no idea of whether a four-year drought is normal, in, say, a 5,000 natural history of the region, or is aberrant — as wet years are long overdue and will return with a vengeance. That we claim to know what to expect from about 150 years of recordkeeping does not mean that we know anything about what is normal in nature’s brief millennia. Our generation may be oblivious to that fact, but our far more astute and pragmatic forefathers certainly were not.

Hubris

If one studies the literature on the history and agendas of the California State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, two observations are clear. One, our ancestors brilliantly understood that Californians always would wish to work and live in the center and south of the state. They accepted that where 75% of the population wished to live, only 25% of the state’s precipitation fell. Two, therefore they designed huge transfer projects from Northern California that was wet and sparsely settled, southward to where the state was dry and populated. They assumed that northerners wanted less water and relief from flooding, and southerners more water and security from drought, and thus their duty was to accommodate both.

Nor were these plans ossified. Indeed, they were envisioned as expanding to meet inevitable population increases. The Temperance Flat, Los Banos Grandes, and Sites reservoirs were planned in wet years as safety deposits, once higher reservoirs emptied. As population grew larger, dams could be raised at Shasta and Oroville. Or huge third-phase reservoirs like the vast Ah Pah project on the Klamath River might ensure the state invulnerability from even 5-6 year droughts.

One can say what one wishes about the long ago cancelled huge Ah Pah project — what would have been the largest manmade reservoir project in California history — but its additional 15 million acre feet of water would be welcomed today. Perhaps such a vast project was mad. Perhaps it was insensitive to local environmental and cultural needs. Perhaps the costs were prohibitive — a fraction of what will be spent on the proposed high-speed rail project. Perhaps big farming would not pay enough of the construction costs. But one cannot say that its 15 million acre feet of water storage would not have been life-giving in a year like this.

In any case, Ah Pah was no more environmentally unsound than is the Hetch Hetchy Project, without which there would be no Silicon Valley today as we now know it. One cannot say that hundreds of millions of public dollars have not gone to environmentalists, in and outside of government and academia, to subsidize their visions of the future that did not include food production and power generation for others. They are no less subsidized than the corporate farmers they detest.

One of the ironies of the current drought is that urbanites who cancelled these projects never made plans either to find more water or to curb population. Take the most progressive environmentalist in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, and the likelihood is that his garden and bath water are the results of an engineering project of the sort he now opposes.

Fantasies

The state and federal water projects were envisioned as many things — flood control, hydroelectric generation, irrigation, and recreation. One agenda was not fish restoration. Perhaps it should have been. But our forefathers never envisioned building dams and reservoirs to store water to ensure year-round fish runs in our rivers — a mechanism to improve on the boom-and-bust cycle of nature, in which 19th century massive spring flooding was naturally followed by August and September low, muddy, or dry valley rivers.

Engineering alone could ensure an unnatural river, where flows could be adjusted all year long, almost every year, by calibrated releases from artificial lakes, ensuring about any sort of river salmon or delta bait fish population one desired. One may prefer catching a salmon near Fresno to having a $70 billion agricultural industry, but these days one cannot have both. Releasing water to the ocean in times of drought was not the intention of either the California State Water Project or the Central Valley Project; again, it may be a better idea than what the old engineers had planned on, but it is predicated on the idea that those living in Mendota or working in Coalinga are an unfortunately unnatural species, at least in comparison to river salmon and bait fish.

Population

Even with drought, cancellations of dams, and diversions of contracted water to the ocean, California might well not have been imperiled by the present drought — had its population stayed at about 20 million when most of the water projects were cancelled in the mid-1970s. Unfortunately the state is now 40 million — and growing. Illegal immigration — half of all undocumented aliens live in California — has added millions to the state population. And agriculture is a key route for Mexican immigrants to reach the middle class. Either the state should insist on closing the borders and encourage emigration out of state to no-tax states (which is already happening at about the rate of 1000 to 2000 people per week), or it should build the infrastructure and create the job opportunities to accommodate newcomers in a semi-arid landscape. That would mean that the vast 4-6 million-acre west side of California’s Central Valley remains irrigated, and that there is continued water made available to a 500-mile dry coastal corridor to accommodate a huge influx of immigrants.

Is it liberal or illiberal to ensure that there will be no new water for a vast new San Jose south of San Jose, or that there will prohibitions on immigration and population growth that would halt a new San Jose? Perhaps the liberal position would be for Silicon Valley grandees to relocate to the wet and rainy Klamath River Basin, where it could grow without unnaturally imported water from the Sierra Nevada. In a truly eco-friendly state, Stanford and Berkeley would open new satellite campuses near the Oregon border to match people with water.

One reality we know does not work: deliberate retardation of infrastructure to discourage consumption and population growth, in the manner of Jerry Brown’s small-is-beautiful campaign of the 1970s. Ossifying the 99 and 101 freeways at 1960s levels did not discourage drivers from using them. It only ensured slower commute times, more fossil fuel emissions, and far more dangerous conditions, as more drivers fought for less driving space.

Not building dams and reservoirs did not mean fewer people would have water or food and thus would not keep coming to California, but only that there would be ever more competition — whether manifested in tapping further the falling aquifer or rationing residential usage — for shrinking supplies.

One theme characterizes California’s attitude about water. Liberal orthodoxy is never consistent. While it may be seen as progressive to champion river and delta restoration or to divert reservoir water for scenic and environmental use, or to discourage more development of agricultural acreage, the results in the real world are hardly liberal.

The poor and the middle classes usually bear the brunt of these policies in terms of reduced job opportunities and a slower economy. Exemption from the ramifications of one’s ideology characterize what can only be called a rich man’s utopian dreams: divert San Joaquin River water for fish, but not Hetch Hetchy water that supplies the Bay Area; talk of bulldozing almond trees, but not golf courses from Indian Wells to Pebble Beach to the Presidio; ensuring less water to poor foothill and Westside communities, but not pulling out the lush gardens or emptying the swimming pools of those who live in La Jolla, Bel Air, Carmel Valley, Woodside, and Presidio Heights.

To paraphrase Tacitus, they make a desert and call it liberal.

Read more: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/four-droughts/#ixzz3WfJzPzz0

Read more: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/2015/03/#ixzz3WfJYaZA7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So again, no proof to contradict...only argument is to tear down a source (which I have already gone over with multiple other sources). Its getting really pathetic in here.

Questioning the scientific validity of the data used to construct the graph is perfectly valid, and I offered up other proxy reconstructions that have been through rigorous review earlier. Go have another look.

Good Lord, you debate like a 5 year old. :glare:

It is a scientific FACT that the earth goes through temperature cycles....

A fact not a single person here has disputed.

Any recollection of ice ages, great floods, deadly droughts in history books? Oh, thats right, the new liberals didnt get to those facts and change them before printing so they must all be lies!!!

Somebody else get in here. It's coming close to someone else's turn to water him. He's flipped the stupid switch.

Its really sad watching our country turn to idiots that refuse to accept anything that doesnt prove their point.

Idiots, huh? I guess the debate's about over, since you've turned to ad hominem stupidity in a lame attempt at keeping the debate going.

I guess next you'll tell me Jesus never existed and the pyramids were built by aliens.

I'm Catholic, silly. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another.....

34yycmc.jpg

oh no, not yet another!?!? They are all lies I tell you!!!

aenpjb.png

And heres another....

25rff3o.png

Too much of a doofus to realize that none of these contradict what I posted earlier, and you offer them with little to no context of the studies they came from. You're just pissing in the wind now.

Be back later. Gotta go coach track. Learn how to debate like a reasonable person in the meantime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has denied this? your statement on the subject just yesterday

It's called a cycle the earth goes through not caused by man.

Not much evidence to corroborate this claim. As in, little to none.

I guess that is what you call debating like a real person. Say whatever fits your argument at that exact moment.. Top notch debating skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has denied this? your statement on the subject just yesterday

It's called a cycle the earth goes through not caused by man.

Not much evidence to corroborate this claim. As in, little to none.

I guess that is what you call debating like a real person. Say whatever fits your argument at that exact moment.. Top notch debating skills.

We were referring to this particular instance of the increase in temperatures. I know it probably flies over your head, but that's an important distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another.....

34yycmc.jpg

oh no, not yet another!?!? They are all lies I tell you!!!

aenpjb.png

And heres another....

25rff3o.png

Too much of a doofus to realize that none of these contradict what I posted earlier, and you offer them with little to no context of the studies they came from. You're just pissing in the wind now.

Be back later. Gotta go coach track. Learn how to debate like a reasonable person in the meantime.

To add to it, you think debating is admitting that the earth's cycles have been previously warmer before CO2 admissions, yet pointing to the last 30 years as some "proof" that there is manmade global warming. All it really does is absolutely prove your in denial of all available facts and only willing to use what suits your stance. In the same fashion, when you wake up tomorrow it will likely warm up 20 degrees. Is that global warming? If you can limit it to 30 years, why not 30 minutes? Where is the cutoff? It is impossible to claim with any certainty that there is manmade global warming when all evidence points towards there being previous cylces of even warmer temps that clearly were not caused by man. I'm sure in typical liberal fashion you will only get more arrogant and pompous and try to attack me with more stuff like "learn to debate like a real person" and "he's flipped the stupid switch" while denying what you don't like and propping up what you do. The reality is that your argument is old and tired and nobody is buying it anymore and you are only left with feeble attacks to try and appear superior. Everyone else here sees through your charade and it pisses you off so you run around poking your chest out claiming to be of higher intellect when in fact it is quite the opposite. I'll relax on you as it is just not fair. As Jesus said, tend my sheep. I should be taking care of your type instead of attacking I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best guess for the cause of the LIA is variable sun activity. The difference is that we're aware of the forcings in play this time around.

But we have been re-assured ad nauseum that solar activity has no effect whatsoever on climatology.

That's not true. It's no wonder you are confused.

Brother, I have been told ad nauseum that solar activity has absolutely zero to do with global warming. I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO.

From your favorite nutjob site they conclude the solar activity is negligible at best. : http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

Climate Myth...

It's the sun

"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of
sunspots
, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.
The data suggests
solar activity
is influencing the global
climate
causing the world to get warmer."
(
)

It's often considered "common sense" that global warming is caused by the Sun. After all, the Sun is the source of almost all of the energy on Earth. The Sun has both direct and indirect influences over the Earth's temperature, and we can evaluate whether these effects could be responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming. As shown in the Intermediate level rebuttal of this argument, dozens of studies have concluded that the Sun simply cannot account for the recent global warming, but here we'll go through the calculations for ourselves.

...

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008)performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005. Similarly, Schurer et al. (2013) uses multiple linear regression and finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years.

Your copy paste from sks does not support this statement, DKW.

But we have been re-assured ad nauseum that solar activity has no effect whatsoever on climatology.

Hence the change in wording that it was at best "negligible." Even SKS, the nutcase site of the cartoonist, can only see solar activity adding at best .13 degrees over the last 300 years. And that contradicts the hockey stick graph that ALL AGW starts somewhere the very end of the 19th Century, that would mean that AGW has only been in the last 130 years or so. I was giving you as much benefit of the doubt by quoting from SKS and showing you that even SKS will admit that "AT BEST" solar activity added .13 degrees in 300 years attributable to Global Warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://wattsupwitht...ng_climate2.png

Lets add this....1880-1915 was considered a cool period as was 1945-1977. It is very easy to see that measuring a warm period against cool perioids would obviously show warmer temps. Most global warming claims are based on the last 30 years (back to the last cool period) or back to the late 1800s or early 1900s (another cool period). 30 years from now you will be claiming that aerosals are the reason for the current global cooling....

Let us also not forget that around the 16th century through the 19th century was considered the "little ice age". No evidence what so ever of natural earth temperature cycles. This is quite an amusing subject (the absolute denial of the earth's constantly changing climate)

http://en.wikipedia..../Little_Ice_Age

Ah yes, Anthony Watts. But of course...

http://www.desmogblo...m/anthony-watts

Another Heartland paid lackey.

Please tell us where that piece you referenced is published in a peer-reviewed journal instead of his own blog.

http://www.sciencedi...123859563100014

http://icecap.us/ima...per_on_SPPI.pdf

http://myweb.wwu.edu...ast-century.pdf

http://donpettygrove...al-warming.html

http://www.climateco...bal cooling.pdf

http://www.globalwar.../basic_info.htm

Yep, just on that one site. Put down the site owner since you cant argue the science. Typical

Thanks for the link (second on the list). You didn't need to include all the other stuff.

And the "site owner" is a blogger who operates a denier site. I'll get back to his argument after I have studied the paper it's based on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That anyone would go to the trouble to make up an ASININE cartoon about the myth of global warming, only goes to show just how warped and infantile are the Warm-Mongers.

Dan Rather made up a story about W to try to throw the election.

Brian Williams lied about being shot at in Iraq.

Rolling Stone printed a fictional story about a rape which didn't happen.

' Hands up/ Don't shoot ! ' was a complete lie.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

Impeccable logic. :-\

You and Tigger are of one mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best guess for the cause of the LIA is variable sun activity. The difference is that we're aware of the forcings in play this time around.

But we have been re-assured ad nauseum that solar activity has no effect whatsoever on climatology.

That's not true. It's no wonder you are confused.

Brother, I have been told ad nauseum that solar activity has absolutely zero to do with global warming. I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO.

From your favorite nutjob site they conclude the solar activity is negligible at best. : http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

Climate Myth...

It's the sun

"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of
sunspots
, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.
The data suggests
solar activity
is influencing the global
climate
causing the world to get warmer."
(
BBC
)

It's often considered "common sense" that global warming is caused by the Sun. After all, the Sun is the source of almost all of the energy on Earth. The Sun has both direct and indirect influences over the Earth's temperature, and we can evaluate whether these effects could be responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming. As shown in the Intermediate level rebuttal of this argument, dozens of studies have concluded that the Sun simply cannot account for the recent global warming, but here we'll go through the calculations for ourselves.

...

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008)performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005. Similarly, Schurer et al. (2013) uses multiple linear regression and finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years.

So you refute my point by making my case? I don't get it.

You said: "Brother, I have been told ad nauseum that solar activity has absolutely zero to do with global warming. I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO."

I congratulate you for posting from my favorite blogger site on the subject. They do a very good job of explaining the science while clearly providing the references used to do so.

To bad you didn't read it. No wonder you are confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has denied this? your statement on the subject just yesterday

It's called a cycle the earth goes through not caused by man.

Not much evidence to corroborate this claim. As in, little to none.

I guess that is what you call debating like a real person. Say whatever fits your argument at that exact moment.. Top notch debating skills.

Look, you don't just throw charts and graphs out with no attribution and no explanation and expect anyone to take them seriously.

I don't know what your background is, but if you don't understand that impressive charts can be constructed from pure hokem, you don't really get the requirements of selling a technical argument to someone who knows better. And your rhetoric is kind of loose also.

Why don't you choose a specific claim and then provide the evidence for that claim? Lets just take one at a time. Use one of your charts - if relevant - and explain what it says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are not the words of someone who knows what they are talking about:

"It is a scientific FACT that the earth goes through temperature cycles....Any recollection of ice ages, great floods, deadly droughts in history books? Oh, thats right, the new liberals didnt get to those facts and change them before printing so they must all be lies!!! Its really sad watching our country turn to idiots that refuse to accept anything that doesnt prove their point. I guess next you'll tell me Jesus never existed and the pyramids were built by aliens."

Like Ben said, the first part is begging the question. No one has disputed the existence of natural cycles in the earth's climate. Not least climatologists and other scientists studying the problem.

The existence of natural sources of variation don't mean that a man made greenhouse effect is not in operation. That's why experiments must account for natural variation.

The rest of it is paranoid ranting that is not very useful in making a technical case for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best guess for the cause of the LIA is variable sun activity. The difference is that we're aware of the forcings in play this time around.

But we have been re-assured ad nauseum that solar activity has no effect whatsoever on climatology.

That's not true. It's no wonder you are confused.

Brother, I have been told ad nauseum that solar activity has absolutely zero to do with global warming. I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO.

From your favorite nutjob site they conclude the solar activity is negligible at best. : http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

Climate Myth...

It's the sun

"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of
sunspots
, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.
The data suggests
solar activity
is influencing the global
climate
causing the world to get warmer."
(
)

It's often considered "common sense" that global warming is caused by the Sun. After all, the Sun is the source of almost all of the energy on Earth. The Sun has both direct and indirect influences over the Earth's temperature, and we can evaluate whether these effects could be responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming. As shown in the Intermediate level rebuttal of this argument, dozens of studies have concluded that the Sun simply cannot account for the recent global warming, but here we'll go through the calculations for ourselves.

...

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008)performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005. Similarly, Schurer et al. (2013) uses multiple linear regression and finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years.

So you refute my point by making my case? I don't get it.

You said: "Brother, I have been told ad nauseum that solar activity has absolutely zero to do with global warming. I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO."

I congratulate you for posting from my favorite blogger site on the subject. They do a very good job of explaining the science while clearly providing the references used to do so.

To bad you didn't read it. No wonder you are confused.

And there you go. Even the crazies over at SKS say emphatically that over the last 300 years solar activity has added only .13 degrees. And that is the site run by the cartoonist.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

It's not the Sun

As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming, “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161813.htm

Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows

acrim_tsi.png

Scientists theorize that there may be a multi-decadal trend in solar output, though if one exists, it has not been observed as yet. Even if the Sun were getting brighter, however, the pattern of warming observed on Earth since 1950 does not match the type of warming the Sun alone would cause. When the Sun’s energy is at its peak (solar maxima), temperatures in both the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) become warmer. Instead, observations show the pattern expected from greenhouse gas effects: Earth’s surface and troposphere have warmed, but the stratosphere has cooled.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts. The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged. The next crucial question was whether a rise in the Sun's activity could explain the global warming seen in the 20th century? By the 1990s, there was a tentative answer: minor solar variations could indeed have been partly responsible for some past fluctuations... but future warming from the rise in greenhouse gases was far outweigh any solar effects

Could go on and on. Solar activity is said to be EXTREMELY MINIMAL AT BEST.

The consensus is in...

The science is settled...

yada yada yada...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homer and Ben, you both remind me of a saying. Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Your impressive experience in debunking something while agreeing with it is an argument fit for a fool.

Proverbs 26:3-12

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own feet and drinks violence. Like a lame man's legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in the mouth of fools. ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link (second on the list). You didn't need to include all the other stuff.

And the "site owner" is a blogger who operates a denier site. I'll get back to his argument after I have studied the paper it's based on.

Well, as I understand it, this paper simply postulates a model of climate cycles which he insists will institute a long period of cooling starting now. So I suppose time will tell.

A little more research on D'Aleo reveals him to be a (literally) religiously motivated believer in the denier industry:

D'Aleo is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[4] The declaration states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
[5]
http://en.wikipedia....seph_D'Aleo

As well as a full-blown conspiracy theorist:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to it, you think debating is admitting that the earth's cycles have been previously warmer before CO2 admissions, yet pointing to the last 30 years as some "proof" that there is manmade global warming.

I assume you mean emissions, but no. I think debate is a disagreement where each side presents well reasoned arguments in support of their position. Something at which you are woefully inept.

My position is one reached by considering the observational evidence that confirms that human activity is the dominant forcing for the current warming.

As I said at the beginning of the thread, this is going to be a lot of sound and fury. One thing it sure as s*** is not is debate.

All it really does is absolutely prove your in denial of all available facts and only willing to use what suits your stance.

*You're

I'm not, and if you had any reading comprehension skill whatsoever, you'd see that. You're now lighting barns full of straw on fire.

In the same fashion, when you wake up tomorrow it will likely warm up 20 degrees. Is that global warming? If you can limit it to 30 years, why not 30 minutes? Where is the cutoff?

Uh oh! Looks like somebody entered the debate without knowing the definition of the word climate! :roflol:

It is impossible to claim with any certainty that there is manmade global warming when all evidence points towards there being previous cylces of even warmer temps that clearly were not caused by man.

Sure it is. It's called evidence. :rolleyes:

You're in rare form right now. It's hilarious.

I'm sure in typical liberal fashion you will only get more arrogant and pompous and try to attack me with more stuff like "learn to debate like a real person" and "he's flipped the stupid switch" while denying what you don't like and propping up what you do.

It doesn't matter if I like it or not. If it makes sense I will accept it. That's the difference between me and you. You have your conclusion and are working backwards from there.

The reality is that your argument is old and tired and nobody is buying it anymore and you are only left with feeble attacks to try and appear superior. Everyone else here sees through your charade and it pisses you off so you run around poking your chest out claiming to be of higher intellect when in fact it is quite the opposite.

In truth, I'll admit I'm rather ordinary in debate. There are others, including conservatives, on this forum I hold in very high esteem and can run rings around me in proper debate.

Truth be told, it takes very little to appear superior when you're the opposition.

I'll relax on you as it is just not fair. As Jesus said, tend my sheep. I should be taking care of your type instead of attacking I suppose.

If you could make salient points, you could make that claim, but you haven't hit on many. As I said, I can only hope you come away from this a little more educated. Ignorant and proud of it is no way to go through life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lies of progressives is all too common. Their laziness causes a bit of concern though.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homer and Ben, you both remind me of a saying. Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Your impressive experience in debunking something while agreeing with it is an argument fit for a fool.

Proverbs 26:3-12

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own feet and drinks violence. Like a lame man's legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in the mouth of fools. ...

*you're

Do you even grammar, bro? ;D

Nuance is not your strong suit.

Quotes scripture and calls us idiots out the other side of his mouth. What a silly little hypocrite you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again, Homer can't argue the science, so he attacks the writer...this time because he is a Christian. The lows around here just keep getting lower. I refer back to my previous statement (which was a Bible verse so Homer may attack). No sense in justifying a foolish argument, for that alone would just make me fool as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homer and Ben, you both remind me of a saying. Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Your impressive experience in debunking something while agreeing with it is an argument fit for a fool.

Proverbs 26:3-12

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own feet and drinks violence. Like a lame man's legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in the mouth of fools. ...

*you're

Do you even grammar, bro? ;D/>

Nuance is not your strong suit.

Quotes scripture and calls us idiots out the other side of his mouth. What a silly little hypocrite you are.

Speaking of name calling....Ironic hypocrisy..... : - )
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...