Still no proof of Global Warming

[Gibonius]

It's entertaining watching people who are obsessed with a single variable try to argue a gigantic multi-variate system.

[leo]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

Do you really have that much difficulty grasping basic logic or do you just have some obsession with having the last word, no matter how wrong you are?

I think you've nailed lock on the head. I don't think he even really reads much of it, his debate strategy is to simply call you an idiot hoping that you'll get butt hurt over internet insults. The fun is in trying to take him seriously.

Badger, on the other hand, really does appear to be trying his best to maintain a coherent stream of thought. Poor guy . He's just a silly demagogue, that is why he always brings up Al Gore and other irrelevant distractions. When in doubt, he just skips over half your argument and pretends like he's making sense. It's a pretty good tactic TBH, you should try it on him.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

Since my analogy represents your logic and shows how it, applied to forest fires, can reach ridiculous conclusions, your logic has actually been disproven.

Your analogy was terrible, and it did not relate to the point at hand at all. Likewise, my logic remains proven, so we'll read your failed analogy and lack of follow up as you giving up on that point.

And therein lies your error. You seem to think I'm saying ancient tribes raised the global temperature. I'm not.

I didn't say you were, you .

I'm saying just because the temperature did rise back then without lots of CO2

Yeaaaaa, we finally taught you something!

doesn't mean the temperatures won't rise today with CO2.

It's been proven it doesn't.

The natural conditions simply aren't the same today as they were in the past.

The "natural conditions" are natural climate change. We're getting there slowly with you. You've almost learned that.

Since you seem to have difficulty grasping basic logic, I'll throw a fictional example your way:Suppose the earth was close to the sun 10,000,000 years ago and had zero CO2 in the atmosphere.Suppose in the present the earth is far from the sun and has eleventy-billion units of CO2 in the atmosphere.If the earth is colder in the present than it was in the past, can you conclude CO2 has no effect on temperature?

Yes, as the graph I posted proves.

And seriously, just quit trying with the examples and analogies. You're obviously too much of a simpleton to grasp the concepts of their use. It's like the chewbacca defense, only worse.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

See previous post for why your logic doesn't work.

See previous post as to why your analogy failed and we think you've given up.

No, actually, it wasn't.

Yes it was.

At best, they've cooled in the past 10 years relative to their level 10 years ago. This doesn't mean there isn't a trend of warming.

I've provided proof that the oceans are not warming, and are cooling.

I don't think you actually know what the word "spin" means.

It's what you're trying to do.

It shows temp vs CO2 for a short period of time in a select part of the world. Hardly useful information if we're trying to figure out if there's a global trend.

Once again you're wrong. First, it plainly shows no correlation between temps and CO2. And second, it's ted "global" temperatures, and therefore useful.

This is the latest decadal from February 1998 to February 2008 of global temperatures from Satellite (UAH MSU lower troposphere) (blue) and land and ocean variance adjusted surface (Hadley CRU T3v) (rose) ted with Scripps monthly CO2 from Mauna Loa (green).

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Corr...ast_Decade.pdf

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does, as proven.

There are any number of reasons why CO2/temperature might drop in the short term while the other rises.

And now you're making shit up.....Pretty sad.

Since you were trying to prove there's no consensus that CO2 is a cause, what I said still stands:

Since, as I said, that link was one part proving there is no consensus, my point was clearly made. You failed to disprove it, so your reply was meaningless. (as most of your replies in this thread have been).

More than half of those people don't study climate and a good portion actually believe that CO2 has an effect.

Most of them do not think man-made CO2 has an effect on global temps. And their credibility:

climatologists, physicists, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris), retired professor of geophysics, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory, Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, and on and on

somewhat outweighs your "those people don't study climate".

Once again, those 400 scientists generally agree that CO2 has an effect, they just disagree how much of an effect.

Come on now, quit being a 10 year old and and go read that article again. That, or quit making shit up (again) to hide your failed argument.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

As I've proven, there is no "consensus". If you don't provide something new on this point, we'll assume you've given up on this also.

If you want to now amend your position to say that CO2 has a minor effect, go right ahead.

All of my proof is still present and doing fine. Your positions and arguemnts have gone no where.

I did answer his question. That's like asking "Do you like pie" and when someone says "Yes", you tell them they didn't answer the question.

Ok. You attempted to answer, but were wrong. We can agree on the wording that way also.

Your "proof", for the 5th or 6th time now, is over a 10 year period ...

Already explained, see above.

In actual fact, you've been proved wrong. But by all means, continue following your path of junk logic and junk debating.

See above. And,

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

And you remain proven wrong, so still we wait.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by leo

I think you've nailed lock on the head. I don't think he even really reads much of it, his debate strategy is to simply call you an idiot hoping that you'll get butt hurt over internet insults. The fun is in trying to take him seriously.

Badger, on the other hand, really does appear to be trying his best to maintain a coherent stream of thought. Poor guy . He's just a silly demagogue, that is why he always brings up Al Gore and other irrelevant distractions. When in doubt, he just skips over half your argument and pretends like he's making sense. It's a pretty good tactic TBH, you should try it on him.

Poor little leo. Those pissy Cheerios must taste like crap, huh? I thought we were done kicking you around, oh, 4 or 5 pages ago.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

Your analogy was terrible, and it did not relate to the point at hand at all. Likewise, my logic remains proven, so we'll read your failed analogy and lack of follow up as you giving up on that point.

Since the analogy wasn't terrible and showed why your logic was flawed you're wrong.

I gave you follow up and explained why the analogy was logical. I even gave you another analogy. You seem to be confusing your inability to think logically with me giving up.

The "natural conditions" are natural climate change. We're getting there slowly with you. You've almost learned that.

You're just rambling at this point. The natural conditions were different back then, so you cannot directly compare back then with today unless you can explain away the dissimiliarities.

Yes, as the graph I posted proves.

You answering yes to that question shows how stupid you are. I even explained to you in that question that the earth was further from the sun. Do you have a hard time picturing more than one thing going on at any given time?

I'll try to break it down for you again:

a) Suppose a volcano subtracts -100 units of temperature
Suppose CO2 adds +2 units of temperature

b Suppose in the past: Volcano + CO2 = -98 units of temperature
Suppose now: No volcano + CO2 = +2 units of temperature

c) Suppose someone else didn't know a). Would they be right in concluding that CO2 doesn't add to the temperature?

Obviously, no.

And seriously, just quit trying with the examples and analogies. You're obviously too much of a simpleton to grasp the concepts of their use. It's like the chewbacca defense, only worse.

Says the guy who doesn't know the definition of an answer.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

I've provided proof that the oceans are not warming, and are cooling.

You showed a graph showing no warming in the past 10 years. That does not disprove an overall trend of warming over a longer period.

Once again you're wrong. First, it plainly shows no correlation between temps and CO2. And second, it's ted "global" temperatures, and therefore useful.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Corr...ast_Decade.pdf

Yes it does, as proven.

If you read carefully, you'll find the CO2 data is from one location.

And now you're making shit up.....Pretty sad.

To give you one of many examples: volcanic activity can decrease global temperature even if CO2 levels are high.

Since, as I said, that link was one part proving there is no consensus, my point was clearly made. You failed to disprove it, so your reply was meaningless. (as most of your replies in this thread have been).

Most of them do not think man-made CO2 has an effect on global temps.

You really need to read links before you post them as sources. Most of them do think CO2 has an effect.

And their credibility:

somewhat outweighs your "those people don't study climate".

Certainly looks like 400 climatologists to me. Oh wait a second...

And it still baffles me why you trust their opinion over other climatologists. Unless of course you've decided things in advance.

Come on now, quit being a 10 year old and and go read that article again. That, or quit making shit up (again) to hide your failed argument.

The credibility of the article aside, I did read it and it explicitly said most agree that CO2 has an effect on climate.

As I've proven, there is no "consensus". If you don't provide something new on this point, we'll assume you've given up on this also.

All of my proof is still present and doing fine. Your positions and arguemnts have gone no where.

You've proven nothing other than your inability to grasp logical concepts.

Ok. You attempted to answer, but were wrong. We can agree on the wording that way also.

Wrong again. I did answer. Consider consulting www.m-w.com to learn how words are defined.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Incidentally, I spent some more time looking through that icecap.us site you fellas seems to love so much and look what I found in their about page:

ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather.

Feel free to look for yourself.

Game and match.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

Since the analogy wasn't terrible and showed why your logic was flawed you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

Likewise, my logic remains proven, so we'll read your failed analogy and lack of follow up as you giving up on that point.

You're just rambling at this point. The natural conditions were different back then, so you cannot directly compare back then with today unless you can explain away the dissimiliarities.

That's your job. And you've failed to disprove natural climate change.

You answering yes to that question shows how stupid you are. I even explained to you in that question that the earth was further from the sun. Do you have a hard time picturing more than one thing going on at any given time? I'll try to break it down for you again:

Don't bother. Your previous examples and analogies failed miserably.

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

And seriously, just quit trying with the examples and analogies. You're obviously too much of a simpleton to grasp the concepts of their use.

Says the guy who doesn't know the definition of an answer.

Says the simpleton riding the junk science bangwagon.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

You showed a graph showing no warming in the past 10 years. That does not disprove an overall trend of warming over a longer period.

It proves mankind is not causing the warming, because we haven't gone away and the oceans are cooling.

Think before you post.

If you read carefully, you'll find the CO2 data is from one location.

And you're still wrong. It's global. Very first paragraph, and can't be missed. Given you have nothing new to argue, we done with this.

To give you one of many examples: volcanic activity can decrease global temperature even if CO2 levels are high.

And volcanoes are part of natural climate change. See, you're coming around on some issues.

You really need to read links before you post them as sources. Most of them do think CO2 has an effect.

Go read it again, . Of the 38 that are not in the consensus of man-made global warming , I didn't include the 3 guys that say the warming will benefit us (and even none of them say it is man-made). We're done with this point also, until you bring something new.

Certainly looks like 400 climatologists to me. Oh wait a second...

400 that are credible enough for the US Senate. I love it when you don't even try to argue obvious proof like that. Oh, and:

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

As I've proven, there is no "consensus". If you don't provide something new on this point, we'll assume you've given up on this also.

The credibility of the article aside, I did read it and it explicitly said most agree that CO2 has an effect on climate.

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

quit making shit up (again) to hide your failed argument.

You've proven nothing other than your inability to grasp logical concepts.

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

As I've proven, there is no "consensus". If you don't provide something new on this point, we'll assume you've given up on this also.

Wrong again. I did answer. Consider consulting www.m-w.com to learn how words are defined.

You were proven wrong. So either accept it and move on, or try to answer him again.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

Incidentally, I spent some more time looking through that icecap.us site you fellas seems to love so much and look what I found in their about page:
Feel free to look for yourself.
Game and match.

They know our role is affected by natural climate change. Duh.

And they go on to say (which you conveniently didn't post):

We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon.

And:

ICECAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day. Our working group is comprised of members from all ends of the political spectrum. This is not about politics but about science.

I glad you're reading the website. We'll knock you off that goofy bandwagon yet.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Your logic has actually been disproven. Check again.

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

That's your job. And you've failed to disprove natural climate change.

For the last fucking time. The existence of natural effects that cause climate change does not actually disprove that CO2 can have an effect. Just like how the fact that lighting can cause forest fires doesn't disprove that humans can't cause forest fires.

Don't bother. Your previous examples and analogies failed miserably.

Feel free to explain how. But you're gonna have lots of trouble, cause they didn't fail.

Says the simpleton riding the junk science bangwagon.

Glad you admit you don't understand the meaning of words. Now that that's out of the way:

Says the simpleton riding the anti-global warming bandwagon.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

It proves mankind is not causing the warming, because we haven't gone away and the oceans are cooling.

You realize you just admitted that there is warming in the same sentence you deny it.

Anyway, in the past 50 years the ocean has warmed. That's a fact not superseded by the data showing that oceans have cooled in the past 10 years, because, SURPRISE SURPRISE, the 50 year graph INCLUDES the data from the past 10 years.

Think before you post.

I suggest you try thinking at any point in your day.

And you're still wrong. It's global. Very first paragraph, and can't be missed. Given you have nothing new to argue, we done with this.

I'm not wrong. Read the last part of the sentence where they say the CO2 measurements are from one location.

And volcanoes are part of natural climate change. See, you're coming around on some issues.

Me admitting that natural effects can affect climate does nothing for your argument. Natural effects can interact with human effects to alter climate.

Go read it again, . Of the 38 that are not in the consensus of man-made global warming , I didn't include the 3 guys that say the warming will benefit us (and even none of them say it is man-made). We're done with this point also, until you bring something new.

Originally Posted by the wiki article

Inclusion is based on specific technical criteria that do not necessarily reflect a broader skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful.

And the main category reads:

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Note the emphasis.

Also, even if they did all doubt human influence, 38 is not especially significant.

400 that are credible enough for the US Senate. I love it when you don't even try to argue obvious proof like that. Oh, and:

Since the 400 include people who disagree about the magnitude of the effects of CO2 (i.e.: they still believe it has SOME effect), and people who disagree about what should be done about it (i.e.: they still believe CO2 has an effect, they just think other things should be done to combat warming), even if they were all climatologists, the report doesn't really help your case.

It's also funny that you think you think a Senate report actually means they support the scientists. It's a fucking report, not a grant. The US government has a position and I'll give you a hint, it's not yours.

You were proven wrong. So either accept it and move on, or try to answer him again.

Glad you now admit I answered him. Now if only you could grow and brain and understand why he didn't disprove anything.

[Jason]

So what happens when they prove that CO2 leads to a drop in temperature because it induces plant growth?

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by Jason

So what happens when they prove that CO2 leads to a drop in temperature because it induces plant growth?

I suppose IF they proved that we'd need to reevaluate our conclusions. But they haven't.

Even if they proved the lesser claim, that CO2 induced plant growth, and plant growth on its own led to cooling, you'd still be unable to deny that CO2 contributes to warming. That's because the net effect of CO2 could be still be towards warming:

e.g.: Suppose
-CO2 adds 2 units to temperature and creates 1 plant
-1 plant reduces temperature by 1 unit
Therefore
-Net effect of CO2 is 1 unit to temperature.