Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

You are very good at baiting people.

Some would say you are a Master Baiter.

Sorry, as THeRedneck so eloquently pointed out, it's best not to play your game.

This isn't the mudpit, this is for honest debate, not childish games.

I've already had one post here removed for not respecting the rules, I'll just ignore you now.

Honest debate? I've been trying to get you to discuss the paper you posted as evidence but you're either unwilling or unable

Did you read the paper? honest question to you.

Also, see here in case you missed it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

You are very good at baiting people.

Some would say you are a Master Baiter.

Sorry, as THeRedneck so eloquently pointed out, it's best not to play your game.

This isn't the mudpit, this is for honest debate, not childish games.

I've already had one post here removed for not respecting the rules, I'll just ignore you now.

Honest debate? I've been trying to get you to discuss the paper you posted as evidence but you're either unwilling or unable

Did you read the paper? honest question to you.

Did you read my comments about the contents of the paper? Honest question to you

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mrthumpy

If you cannot explain the paper then it is taken that you don't understand it

The very fact that you continued for two pages to ask what the paper said is an indication that you either do not possess the ability to comprehend it, or you are purposely being obtuse. I make no conclusion as to which is true.

TheRedneck

Don't lie. Not once did I ask what the paper said

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

Riddle me this, if there is no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in the last 200 years, how can C02 be the cause Mr. Thumpy?

Could you answer the question please?

How does this paper show that CO2 cannot be linked to CO2

link.springer.com...

You've went in circles so many times, you've confused even yourself, not much else to say to you unless you can read the paper and ask VALID questions Mr. Thumpy.

The carbonphobes have been played. Trump’s tweet and their responses have boxed them into a corner where they can be mocked as fools when they conflate weather events with climate.

The weather isn’t climate so Trump is ignorant meme by NYT, Myhre, Hayhoe, and many others who deliberately and frequently use weather as examples of CAGW—Harvey, previous Cali drought, previous Texas drought. Twittering Deplorables are flinging the hypocrisy back in their faces with links to their past comments.

Not just one mission accomplished, several. Take down AGW, remind on Paris, take down MSM.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Don't lie. Not once did I ask what the paper said

You certainly did, sir. Here you asked how it disproved sea level change from man-made CO2. You were answered here with an added graphic from the same data. You then repeated the exact same question here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That's 9 times you asked the exact same question, and each time you were answered. Finally, here you disagreed with the paper, but gave no specifics as to why.

That is intellectual dishonesty at best. And you dare call me a liar? The evidence is there for everyone to see. Your accusation is like the pot calling an ivory tower black.

At this point, I would like a scientifically-based explanation as to why you disagree, just to see if you actually read the thing.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mrthumpy

Don't lie. Not once did I ask what the paper said

You certainly did, sir. Here you asked how it disproved sea level change from man-made CO2. You were answered here with an added graphic from the same data. You then repeated the exact same question here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That's 9 times you asked the exact same question, and each time you were answered. Finally, here you disagreed with the paper, but gave no specifics as to why.

That is intellectual dishonesty at best. And you dare call me a liar? The evidence is there for everyone to see. Your accusation is like the pot calling an ivory tower black.

At this point, I would like a scientifically-based explanation as to why you disagree, just to see if you actually read the thing.

TheRedneck

Religions do not require scientifically-based explanations. "the science is settled", "you are a denier", "you are an idiot". That's about all you'll get.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mrthumpy

Don't lie. Not once did I ask what the paper said

You certainly did, sir. Here you asked how it disproved sea level change from man-made CO2. You were answered here with an added graphic from the same data. You then repeated the exact same question here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That's 9 times you asked the exact same question, and each time you were answered. Finally, here you disagreed with the paper, but gave no specifics as to why.

That is intellectual dishonesty at best. And you dare call me a liar? The evidence is there for everyone to see. Your accusation is like the pot calling an ivory tower black.

At this point, I would like a scientifically-based explanation as to why you disagree, just to see if you actually read the thing.

TheRedneck

I was asking nibbler how he thought the paper he posted proved what he claimed it did.

a reply to: mrthumpy

And he answered you 9 different times.

Do you have a scientific basis to rebut the paper, or not?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mrthumpy

And he answered you 9 different times.

Do you have a scientific basis to rebut the paper, or not?

TheRedneck

Nope, he just kept avoiding it. Almost as if he didn't understand it or something

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mrthumpy

Don't lie. Not once did I ask what the paper said

At this point, I would like a scientifically-based explanation as to why you disagree, just to see if you actually read the thing.

TheRedneck

At this point I would like a scientifically-based explanation why nibbler thinks the paper proves his point. Just to see if he actually read the thing

a reply to: mrthumpy

He did.

But I'll back off and let him defend himself now. I just wanted to see if you really had an interest in intellectual discussion. I now know you don't, so I am satisfied.

Have a nice day.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

Riddle me this, if there is no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in the last 200 years, how can C02 be the cause Mr. Thumpy?

Could you answer the question please?

How does this paper show that CO2 cannot be linked to CO2

link.springer.com...

You seem to be moving the goalposts with that question, not quite sure how to answer that one.

I answered your original question here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and questioned you as to what part of the paper you disagreed with here.

I do not believe you are here for honest debate. I am satisfied that I have tried to communicate an answer to you in as many ways as can be expected of a reasonable person. If you have issues with the paper itself, lets hear them?

This is likely the best of all the answers:
Since atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing substantially for about seventy years, mostly because of fossil fuel use, the lack of acceleration in sea-level rise over that period means that anthropogenic GHG emissions have not detectably affected sea-level.



But at the same time, the inforgraphic sums it up quite well...



As does just a single station, with the C02 levels superimposed.


At this site, you can choose your station and build your graph.
www.sealevel.info...
Let me know if you find one that shows an acceleration in sea level that correlates to the rise in C02. (hint, you won't)

a reply to: bluechevytree

Absolutely, the cycles of the sun control our cooling and warming. Period. End of story. Global warming/cooling that Al Gore talks about is junk science and intended to enslave people through taxes at his and his crony's benefit.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Solar activity has been declining for 60 years or so. Meanwhile, the planet has been getting warmer. Seems there may be factors other than solar output involved.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: alphabetaone

Why should it matter that he has a sense of humor, and the ability to weave it into 140-character comments on current events? We all do it. Why should it be OK for us but not OK for our leader?

Well, because, our punchlines don't have 300+ million lives and the well-being of them hanging in the balance. Our President should always be serious when talking about serious matters that his/her constituency cares about or is scared/concerned about coupled with an effort to put their minds at ease and show strength and never make light of it no matter which side you choose to espouse. To do otherwise shows a basic lack of common decency for other people in general.

a reply to: Phage

Exactly, and we are entering a mini ice age. Even Al Gore is trying to spin global cooling as human induced. Sheesh! Being there was more pollution during the Industrial Age, the human factor is nearly negligible.

a reply to: alphabetaone

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Exactly, and we are entering a mini ice age.

This would not seem to be the case. As I said, solar activity has been declining while the planet is warming.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Exactly, and we are entering a mini ice age.

This would not seem to be the case. As I said, solar activity has been declining while the planet is warming.

Which reinforces my long standing theory that the Earth is warming from the bottom up, or the center out. Climate shifting can be explained over long periods by solar cycles, vegetation, volcanism and the like. But relatively short-term climate shifting has to be explained by other means. Normally I would suspect some disruption or acceleration in the NAO and that may still be the case for cooling bringing less warmth to the northern hemisphere as that too has been in decline for some time now...however in conjunction, there could well be magma movement that we are unaware of beginning to create hotspots that never existed before. It's a theory I've had now for almost 15 years, but it's a real tough one to nail down for obvious reasons.