Duke study finds natural variability impacts global warming

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Bits of info need not be reported that contradict the official govt line that AGW is an immediate crisis.

Christians being martyred in record #'s by Muslims is a " generational " matter .

I believe you are right about the left being wrong and, wrong about the right being right. While important, our immediate problems are not the environment or, religious persecution.

Our immediate problem is the economy and, our ability to regain economic leadership in the world.

[Weegle777 78]

We do agree. People and animals and plants adapt. No one disputes that. I don't see what the issue is.

Do you agree that all living things today evolved from a common ancestor? If not, then we do not agree.

So you believe in the unprovable?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Oh boy. Another climate change thread. No, please keep your seat, I'll let myself out.

What? You don't see the logic in a scientific debate firmly grounded in politics?

[AUDub 11,147]

So you believe in the unprovable?

I do. It's as scientifically provable as anything else that has been scientifically tested. It's one of the most well established and supported theories in the whole of science. It has all the intricacy and reality of advanced physics.

Never hear of people saying relativity isn't provable, though.

EDIT: Well, you do. We call those people idiots.

[AUDub 11,147]

What? You don't see the logic in a scientific debate firmly grounded in politics?

Who's arguing politics?

[Mims44 1,867]

I see Mims has joined your group. Congrats, you have found one that is "teachable", and will buy what you are selling. Browbeat aujeff a little more and he may fall in line with you.

Teachable? Is it your belief that Bigbens is the only one holding these thoughts... therefore if anyone else believes it he must be the source? lol

And I would guess Bigbens and me don't agree 100%, I can get behind the fact that climate change is happening, has been happening, and will continue to happen. I don't think anyone knows for sure exactly how much of the change is man made, surely we affect it, but to what degree? You can find published research stating anywhere between negligible and catastrophic. You can find timelines that show drastic change within 50 years and others that doens't show a large change until you look over multiple centuries.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Grumpy that was awesomely logical. It of course will be countered with a TPM post or one from some AGW think tank countering it with emotional quivering.

How about I counter it with my own words? I just went over it in the other thread.

For the record, one more time, I see the point that MAN is contributing TO AGW.

Too bad, cause he's wrong. WTH?

I just find it hysterical whenever someone asks a question or points out how AGW modeling has failed horribly that we inevitably get a flat earther attack.

Also too bad, because in this day and age, you should be ridiculed for your silliness if you reject evolution. I never said anything about Evolution at all.

WOW. You misunderstood everything so badly that it will take an hour to straighten it out.

1) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

2) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

3) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

[AUDub 11,147]

Grumpy that was awesomely logical. It of course will be countered with a TPM post or one from some AGW think tank countering it with emotional quivering.

How about I counter it with my own words? I just went over it in the other thread.

For the record, one more time, I see the point that MAN is contributing TO AGW.

Too bad, cause he's wrong. WTH?

I just find it hysterical whenever someone asks a question or points out how AGW modeling has failed horribly that we inevitably get a flat earther attack.

Also too bad, because in this day and age, you should be ridiculed for your silliness if you reject evolution. I never said anything about Evolution at all.

WOW. You misunderstood everything so badly that it will take an hour to straighten it out.

1) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

2) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

3) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

Grumps did. I'm saying he's wrong, nor was I specifically referring to you with the on the last sentence.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Grumpy that was awesomely logical. It of course will be countered with a TPM post or one from some AGW think tank countering it with emotional quivering.

How about I counter it with my own words? I just went over it in the other thread.

For the record, one more time, I see the point that MAN is contributing TO AGW.

Too bad, cause he's wrong. WTH?

I just find it hysterical whenever someone asks a question or points out how AGW modeling has failed horribly that we inevitably get a flat earther attack.

Also too bad, because in this day and age, you should be ridiculed for your silliness if you reject evolution. I never said anything about Evolution at all.

WOW. You misunderstood everything so badly that it will take an hour to straighten it out.

1) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

2) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

3) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

Grumps did.

I DIDNT.

[Weegle777 78]

So you believe in the unprovable?

I do. It's as scientifically provable as anything else that has been scientifically tested. It's one of the most well established and supported theories in the whole of science. It has all the intricacy and reality of advanced physics.

Never hear of people saying relativity isn't provable, though. :rolleyes:/>

EDIT: Well, you do. We call those people idiots.

Ok, let's start with this: You admit that ultimately, it is unprovable correct? The common ancestor thing.

[AUDub 11,147]

Grumpy that was awesomely logical. It of course will be countered with a TPM post or one from some AGW think tank countering it with emotional quivering.

How about I counter it with my own words? I just went over it in the other thread.

For the record, one more time, I see the point that MAN is contributing TO AGW.

Too bad, cause he's wrong. WTH?

I just find it hysterical whenever someone asks a question or points out how AGW modeling has failed horribly that we inevitably get a flat earther attack.

Also too bad, because in this day and age, you should be ridiculed for your silliness if you reject evolution. I never said anything about Evolution at all.

WOW. You misunderstood everything so badly that it will take an hour to straighten it out.

1) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

2) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

3) I never said anything about Evolution at all.

Grumps did.

I DIDNT.

I WASN'T REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO YOU? WHY ARE WE YELLING?

[DKW 86 7,419]

I think I am starting to understand:

If a species is faced with obstacles that affect its survivability it will evolve over time to increase the chances of survival.

If the earth is faced with man-made obstacle that affects its survivability, then we are screwed unless the government saves us.

^-^

Grumps said something very very funny.

Evolution says Animals can and have adapted.

AGW says that MAN, also another Animal, cannot adapt unless the Govt does it for us.

If anything, it is the AGW Crowd denying Evolution!

[AUDub 11,147]

So you believe in the unprovable?

I do. It's as scientifically provable as anything else that has been scientifically tested. It's one of the most well established and supported theories in the whole of science. It has all the intricacy and reality of advanced physics.

Never hear of people saying relativity isn't provable, though. :rolleyes:/>

EDIT: Well, you do. We call those people idiots.

Ok, let's start with this: You admit that ultimately, it is unprovable correct? The common ancestor thing.

If it is not provable, then nothing is.

[AUDub 11,147]

Grumps said something very very funny.

Evolution says Animals can and have adapted.

AGW says that MAN, also another Animal, cannot adapt unless the Govt does it for us.

If anything, it is the AGW Crowd denying Evolution!

That's a fundemental misunderstanding of the concept. Not entirely surprising, given the debates we've had in the past on the matter.

[AUDub 11,147]

I apologize, DKW. I did misread the second sentence of post 21.

[DKW 86 7,419]

I still find it hilarious!

Evolution is great!...unless it involves AGW and then it is completely meaningless.

Gotcha!

[Weegle777 78]

The reason I ask Bens, is because if that one thing was provable without a shadow of a doubt, you have to admit that that would be nuclear explosive as far as creationism vs. evolution goes. Solid proof of a common ancestor would change how everyone on this entire planet views our origin. It would throw the Christian church on its ears. The fact that it is still debated is proof that unmistakable solid proof of a common ancestor hasn't been found. Agree?

[AUDub 11,147]

I still find it hilarious!

Evolution is great!...unless it involves AGW and then it is completely meaningless.

Gotcha!

It doesn't happen on a timetable that would allow life to adapt to a rapidly changing planet. We were discussing the reef yesterday. Why do you think it's dying off?

[Grumps 3,704]

Wow! Everyone sure is uptight today. I was just trying to make the (obviously really lame ) point that it seems funny that we are supposed to believe that species can adapt to increase their chances of surviving change, but that the galaxy is not able to accommodate changes thought to be created by man. My post was not intended to be scientific.

I believe that evolution has occurred and I believe that man's pollution has affected our environment. However, as the terms are currently defined, I do not believe in "Evolution" or in AGW." These days there does not appear to be room for any gray area.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I still find it hilarious!

Evolution is great!...unless it involves AGW and then it is completely meaningless.

Gotcha!

Are the concepts of evolution and extinction mutually exclusive?

[AUDub 11,147]

The reason I ask Bens, is because if that one thing was provable without a shadow of a doubt, you have to admit that that would be nuclear explosive as far as creationism vs. evolution goes. Solid proof of a common ancestor would change how everyone on this entire planet views our origin. It would throw the Christian church on its ears. The fact that it is still debated is proof that unmistakable solid proof of a common ancestor hasn't been found. Agree?

It isn't debated within the scientific community, not on any sort of appreciable level. For all intents and purposes, evolution is scientific fact. There's no doubt there is a common ancestor back there. We're too similar to our closest relatives for there not to be.

[AUDub 11,147]

Wow! Everyone sure is uptight today. I was just trying to make the (obviously really lame ) point that it seems funny that we are supposed to believe that species can adapt to increase their chances of surviving change, but that the galaxy is not able to accommodate changes thought to be created by man. My post was not intended to be scientific.

I believe that evolution has occurred and I believe that man's pollution has affected our environment. However, as the terms are currently defined, I do not believe in "Evolution" or in AGW." These days there does not appear to be room for any gray area.

This is like the third thread on AGW this past week. Where have you been?

[cooltigger21 0]

All of our environmental policy is based off of these wildly inaccurate models. This is what the IPCC used and then we just went right along with them.

[Grumps 3,704]

My apologies! I don't come around here much anymore. I'll just crawl back into my hole.

[AUDub 11,147]

All of our environmental policy is based off of these wildly inaccurate models. This is what the IPCC used and then we just went right along with them.

Did you even bother to read the abstract of the paper?

The empirical EUN also indicates that the reduced GMT warming over the past decade or so is still consistent with a middle emission scenario’s forced signal, but is likely inconsistent with the steepest emission scenario’s forced signal.