Global Warming HOAX Unravels

originally posted by: [post=20106075]Justoneman
Yes, 0.30 of one degree that isn't really a problem is it?

In a few years it is

Over 200 years that is ~2c And that is a very rapid change, geologically speaking.

But the point is, the OP is not telling the truth.

Or does that not matter?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sooo, you were engaging me then and DID NOT Read them???? YOUR BAD. I guess you didn't want to know anyway?. I will see if i can go get them back on this part of the thread.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Looking at this thread's flag count, I'd say that no it doesn't matter to anyone in this thread. Just back patting and confirmation bias.

a reply to: Metallicus

I personally hate this environmental tax bullsh*t and carbon tax crap they pushed upon us especially on electronic goods in Canada. I personally think this is just another grab from the Elite to push for their agenda.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

you were engaging me then and DID NOT Read them???? YOUR BAD. I guess you didn't want to know anyway?.

Actually YOU engaged me first in the thread. Here is your first post to me in the thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you can see, I wasn't addressing you, but a different poster. So don't reinvent the narrative of the thread. You engaged me first and demanded that I be 100% up to speed with YOUR argument even though I've never spoken to or know who you are. Meanwhile, you ignore all the links that I post and harp on me for ignoring your links (which you refuse to repost).

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

millennials are more likely to believe in AGW than any other generation, I wonder why that is?

Because young people are gullible and more likely to be influenced by the establishment. I didn't realize that the Government and the U.N. were the real enemy until I got older.

Hm. My first impression of "The Government" and "The Establishment" as a very young child was Vietnam, with Nixon and Watergate. My father always hated how anti-establishment I became, how I wasn't into American Exceptionalism based on my early experiences, etc.

From where I'm sitting, the ESTABLISHMENT now equals CORPORATE OVERLORDS and BIG OIL. I don't believe what they say about climate change because I know it will cost them enormous amounts of money should we walk away from their business model.

peace,
AB

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: [post=20106075]Justoneman
Yes, 0.30 of one degree that isn't really a problem is it?

In a few years it is

Over 200 years that is ~2c And that is a very rapid change, geologically speaking.

But the point is, the OP is not telling the truth.

Or does that not matter?

Ok, we don't remember the little Ice age in the late 18th Century then. Ok, the idea is for scientist to look at all the data, as i have been trying to tell KraZ, we see that is a long way from where it goes naturally. The last time it was that hot we had lush landscapes rich in plant and foodstuffs. Is that a bad idea?

Please, be more sensible to all the available data and not just the part you have decided is the truth.

-- justoneman

I felt I should reiterate this wee bit of justoneman's post...I feel it is very important.

Of equal importance is corroboration and validation of that data and it's source. Almost all of the arguments that support global warming (as differentiated from climate change) use data from a single source...(my observation). Typically, single sourced data is unacceptable when the source's data is questioned...for any reason.

So, while the "anti's" make their unsupported claims, and call your data into question; you can not continue the argument with your data...it just lost much of its "confidence" (confidence in this instance is an attribute of the data that describes how reliable the data is). This tends to "unprove" the hypothesis leaving only one course...corroboration and/or validation.
Both will require other parties, hopefully neutral.

In any case, global warming is an almost entirely unsubstantiated hypothesis at its very, very best. The hypothesis that what is being observed is a natural phenomena has (in my opinion) a much higher "confidence level".

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Well we have two sides of an argument one is a cooling trend the other a warming one.... 200 years of data is far from conclusive.....I do agree that there is change the earth is in a constant state of change..... How much affect we are having I am not sure what I am sure of we are polluting this earth so much we are not only killing other species but stand a good chance of wiping ourselves out..,

As far as doing something about it we will have to wait until something other than greed being the motivating factor

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

you were engaging me then and DID NOT Read them???? YOUR BAD. I guess you didn't want to know anyway?.

Actually YOU engaged me first in the thread. Here is your first post to me in the thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you can see, I wasn't addressing you, but a different poster. So don't reinvent the narrative of the thread. You engaged me first and demanded that I be 100% up to speed with YOUR argument even though I've never spoken to or know who you are. Meanwhile, you ignore all the links that I post and harp on me for ignoring your links (which you refuse to repost).

This isn't a pissing contest. It is a data discussion. The data has been provided and you are failing to make a valid point against said data because you know it not.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: [post=20106075]Justoneman
Yes, 0.30 of one degree that isn't really a problem is it?

In a few years it is

Over 200 years that is ~2c And that is a very rapid change, geologically speaking.

But the point is, the OP is not telling the truth.

Or does that not matter?

Ok, we don't remember the little Ice age in the late 18th Century then. Ok, the idea is for scientist to look at all the data, as i have been trying to tell KraZ, we see that is a long way from where it goes naturally. The last time it was that hot we had lush landscapes rich in plant and foodstuffs. Is that a bad idea?

Ok. Let's look at some data then.

What ended the Little Ice Age?

There's a lot of science and data in there (which I'm sure you'll find some reason not to read or just ignore), but I'll post this conclusion for you:

The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.

More data about the little ice age:
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.

a reply to: Justoneman

Data which you refuse to provide. But since you are so lazy and I'm feeling froggy let's go ahead and tear every source you provided in this thread apart.

Source 1

This is an article bitching that a proponent of Climate Change doesn't want to debate a skeptic. It isn't a refutation of the science though.

Source 2
This doesn't disprove Climate Change either. Correcting data? What's wrong with making sure the data is correct?

Source 3

This source (from Bloomberg) is about the Climate Talks in Paris and has nothing to do with disproving science.

Source 4

This is a blog whining that we called out Soon for being a shill for the oil companies but no one is calling out shills for the EPA. I has nothing to do with disproving Climate Change though.

Finally Source 5

I already addressed that point here (a post you completely ignored):
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Justoneman
Yes, 0.30 of one degree that isn't really a problem is it? In fact with normal error statistics being + or - 5% in using scientifically reproducible monitoring data we can see how this could be an anomaly of the equipment. NOAA apparently did adjust the data, in an attempt to make it right you all say, and i say to rig the game.

Do you have any data to indicate that NOAA changed, or rather, corrected the data? Because IF you do; that's kind of an "end game" ...

Though honestly; I'd be rather surprised if you did...

a reply to: Justoneman

Krazy,

I am saying there is reason to doubt and i provided good sources for you to have a chance to see enough facts to get it right. That is all. You can be persistent and i admire your spunk so don't be offended. But if you insist on being a spokesmen for data that is proven untrustworthy over sources that WERE IN THE IPCC , now on the side of NOT major influences by man in Temps, I will be on the other side pointing out with sources why i feel you are wrong. IN THIS THREAD you have repeatedly ignored the discussion about things like the powerful admitting they were doing this for the money and not the Climate, the NOAA data fudging, and even the scientist who have good standing who disagree with IPCC. How am i to help you understand when you ignore these facts? I am trying.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Justoneman

Data which you refuse to provide.

Pages 6-8 or so i did provide. Just look back please. The others reading this thread have done so.

a reply to: Metallicus

Nutbag? Well, at least you know your post is nuts. Gotta get that propaganda out there anyway though, right?

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012

So your'e telling me the biggest and harshest El-nino effect we're facing here in the southern hemisphere is all lies...

It is cold in the NW so come on El-Nino...

OK, a refresher then guys one of these i just added but two i got on page 6 of this thread.

www.forbes.com...

www.newsbusters.org...


climatecenter.fsu.edu...

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: [post=20106075]Justoneman
Yes, 0.30 of one degree that isn't really a problem is it?

In a few years it is

Over 200 years that is ~2c And that is a very rapid change, geologically speaking.

But the point is, the OP is not telling the truth.

Or does that not matter?

Compare that to the changes at the end of the last great ice age; there are still popular legends about that!

0.01 degrees per year is quite mild...

a reply to: Metallicus

Naturalnews!!!!!

O jesus H come on. I's a joke site. Well would be a joke site if it wasn't for all the people who actually believe the stuff posted on there.

I gave that site a chance. I researched 3 topics 2 years ago, 3 at random on topics I had not paid an interest in. I traced the info and cross referenced it. It was all subjective B.S.

From that day to this I totally reject anything posted on there.