Abruptly Warming Climate Triggered Megabeast Revolutions - Evidence against man made climate change

a reply to: BomSquad

Dude, your OP title directly says that this information is evidence against Climate Change. You made the link, you can't walk it back now. Just because something similar may have happened in the past doesn't automatically discount all evidence we've collected for man made climate change in the present.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Ah silly me! If it's on the internet then it MUST be true right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You should read the article title again....Evidence against MAN MADE climate change. Not against climate change itself. The article is about climate change causing animals to go extinct....

a reply to: BomSquad

I know what it said. Making that stipulation is unnecessary. I've never seen anyone doubt natural climate change.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And yet, that is exactly what you accused me of doing:

Why do you deniers always have to do these roundabout measures to try disprove climate change? Can't you just look at the data itself and see if it is flawed? Nah, it's easier to create strawmans out of other sciences to prove your point...

a reply to: BomSquad

I know what I typed and I stand by it. You are trying to disprove man made climate change by showing that the climate changed naturally along a similar pattern in the past, but this disregards ALL the data we have that shows the effects of the polutants dumped by man into the atmosphere is having on the climate. Like I said, just because it happened in the past, doesn't mean that it is happening now. Have you looked into the factors that CAUSED this similar climate shift? Are they the same as the factors going on now causing the CURRENT climate shift? Or did you just see a parallel and say, "See, it's exactly the same thing, thus man made climate change is fake!"?

Armchair science... Tsk.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ever heard of climategate? Do some research...

There is so much information out there from the CRU programmers own code/readme's, to the exchanges between Phil Jones and his team talking about deleting/manipulating/withholding information that it doesn't take someone with more than a 6th grade level of education to understand what is going on.

Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt on everything else, the fact that they even talk about withholding information as scientists is just morally wrong.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Well this thing called the internet that you take for granted, can give you all of the information you could ever want as long as you know how to use it.

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ever heard of climategate? Do some research...

You mean the manufactured scandal that didn't amount to anything? How much research have YOU done on Climategate?
Debunkin g Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.

Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."

A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.

Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.

Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."

An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

There is so much information out there from the CRU programmers own code/readme's, to the exchanges between Phil Jones and his team talking about deleting/manipulating/withholding information that it doesn't take someone with more than a 6th grade level of education to understand what is going on.

Yea, all of us with seventh grade educations and beyond know the definition of "manufactured scandal" and stay up-to-date on things such as this so that we don't look idiotic by bringing up proven hoaxes.

Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt on everything else, the fact that they even talk about withholding information as scientists is just morally wrong.

Go deny some ignorance.

a reply to: BomSquad

If you research on the history of earth and his climate it shows how earth had tackle the cycles of warming and cooling, actually earth has been warmer longer than cooler and the eras when earth has been the warmest the temperature is not even close to what we have today.

The agenda is about global warming and the agenda had a lot of money and investments to be profited from.

So I been watching how the now Weather channels bought by big corporation is been claiming everything going on in earth as global warming, even the winters, I just scratch my head.

Earth will do what earth will do and has done before and will do after humans are no longer here.

a reply to: Danke

Indeed. ou can find someone proving whatever you want on the internet.

When it comes to science, I suggest always checking the actual source. And not someone elses interpretation of it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So rather than do your own research, you rely on federally funded/biased groups to do it for you?

The fact of the matter is that the people who are in charge of controlling/advising the flow of data to the UN, IPCC, and climate scientists around the world openly talked about deleting/manipulating/withholding information.

That is NOT science. That is politics.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

I read the CRU programmers code/readme's directly. I read all of the emails directly. Did you?

I don't rely on other people's work like you and Krazy do.

Good try though.

I was under the impression that the warming of the climate today was "unprecedented".

Nothing unusual in todays climate. Nor is there anything unusual in Governments attempts to create new taxes on the public to support an ever growing public service that weighs down the economy.

a reply to: glend
It's always funny when people post graphs and charts with no link to where they are from - almost like they are trying to hide something.

So, a couple of things about that chart:

1) Oh, look at that, this chart you are citing supports the infamous hockey stick.
2) 2004 was, by recent standards, somewhat cooler:
December - November average
2014 - .74
2013 - .64
2012 - .63
2011 - .60
2010 - .73
2009 - .64
2008 - .53
2007 - .69
2006 - .63
2005 - .68
2004 - .57
2003 - .59
2002 - .64
2001 - .53
2000 - .44

I've helpfully put 2014 on that chart so that you'll notice what the scale is - tenths of a degree Celsius.

a reply to: Greven

You could have asked for a link without trying to assert I am a liar and cheat thank you very much. Chart was sourced from en.wikipedia.org... which is sourced from Wikimedia commons, I didn't provide the link because I store the chart in ATS repository,

The chart you have published is not the chart I have published nor do I have any interest in reading anything from skeptical science site which is run by John Cook a Queensland Global warmist, so have no idea why you wrote "Oh, look at that, this chart you are citing supports the infamous hockey stick", nor do I care.

Temperature figures you have cited comes from GISS that have continually massaged raw data with corrections to show a warming trend in US when none existed prior to 1998. The old temperature series has been removed from GISS repository but some sites still have the old series displayed. Like NASA page here



The continual modification to raw data has been criticised here wattsupwiththat.com...

a reply to: glend

Do you really believe scientists from all around the world are modifying their data to fulfill an agenda?

Here are links to counter whatsupwiththat.com:

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

a reply to: jrod

Scientist from all over the world do not modify data, they obtain their data from sources like GISS. The question you need ask yourself is why did 49 astronauts and scientist working for NASA take the unprecedented step in complaining about NASA and GISS position on global warming caused by CO2.

"With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
Link
"

Banks want to play derivatives with carbon futures
The tax man wants a carbon tax.
Neither Government nor banks really care about the environment.

the eras when earth has been the warmest the temperature is not even close to what we have today

The earth was warmer in the past because the continents were different and there were no ice caps. The land was more clustered near the equator than it is today, and also the makeup of the atmosphere was different.

Comparing our world now to back then is ridiculous.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BomSquad

No one says that climate change is SOLELY caused by man. Scientists freely acknowledge that natural causes go into the climate. They are just more concerned with the ADDITIONAL causes that we are supplying to the climate that is causing it to behave outside of its normal cycle.

Like what pray tell. What can we possibly be supplying the climate that is contributing to the climate behaving outside it's normal cycle? Because it's normal cycle is to change from one extreme to the other throughout it's magnificent history. Science has proven this. We may be able to affect species with our pollution but we can't change the climate one bit. It's bigger than us. And please don't answer unless you are a qualified scientist. Because even the qualified scientists can't agree on this issue. It's all a matter of what you choose to believe. I really appreciate the analogy to religion because that's what it's become. Separating friends and families it will. The CC believers against the Natural cycle believers......I can see it now.