Still no proof of Global Warming

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

I'll remind you for the 3rd time in this thread, saying you're "beating me" doesn't actually make it true. So far I've handled every "argument" you sent my way.

For instance, your argument that the IPCC can't be trusted because one of the guys left and spoke out against the group was totally refuted when I revealed why he left - to refresh your memory, because you seem to be a little slow, he left because he didn't like how people were interpreting the hurricane data NOT because he disagreed with their overall conclusions. But, as usual, you just won't respond to my counter and hope everyone else in the thread doesn't notice.

I should also point out that if I can annoy someone enough that they actually spend real money to give me a barely visible and totally ineffective title, I've won regardless of how the argument goes.

P.S. You should spring for an avatar if you really want to make your point.

You handled every argument?

You cant even read half of them correctly

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

An analogy, if you will:

OK......

Suppose forest fires occur naturally. And let's say people also start forest fires. Let's also pretend for a second that there's also some person out there that knows nothing about the causes of forest fires.
Finally, let's say this disbeliever then looked at a graph showing the occurance of forest fires over a 10 million year period.
Do you think he would have grounds for concluding that humans cannot start forest fires?
The answer, of course, is no. Hopefully you can connect the dots and see how it's relevant to our discussion.

Given your attempted analogy is pretty stupid, and you completely failed to show a correlation, it's obvious you not only suck at analogies, but you're not really trying to disprove what I've proven to you. So we'll chalk it up as you don't have an arguement.

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

It does prove that the earth was much warmer in the past before there was any man-made input. Thus, natural climate change fluctuates the earth's temps, not mankind.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

Where?

My first post on page 3.
My first and second post on page 7.
My first post on page 8.

I saw your last post and, like I said, it does not disprove global warming is being caused or amplified by CO2.

It does prove that CO2 does not cause man-made global warming.[/quote]

You do seem to believe the earth is warming though, so that's something.

And cooling, and warming, and cooling, etc. All due to natural climate change.

You'll have to come up with a mechanism on your own if you want me take a "new angle".

You have to come up with own, new junk science arguements to promote. I've proved you wrong, and now wait for you to try something new.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by BoxyBrown

30 years ago we were headed for an ice age. It's all about the fear campaign the media tries to put on us.

Exactly.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

OK......



Given your attempted analogy is pretty stupid, and you completely failed to show a correlation, it's obvious you not only suck at analogies, but you're not really trying to disprove what I've proven to you. So we'll chalk it up as you don't have an arguement.

The point of the analogy was to show how ridiculous your logic is.

You can't go from the statement "that the earth was warmer in the past" to the statement "thus man-made global warming doesn't occur". It doesn't follow logically.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

My first post on page 3.

The one witha graph showing how temperatures fluctuated in the past. Yes, I saw it. It doesn't disprove that CO2 could contribute to warming now.

My first and second post on page 7.

Your first post was a graph over a 10 year period. Not only was that quite short, but it doesn't account for ocean warming, gives only a snapshot of the global picture, and doesn't actually prove CO2 has no effect.

Your second post was about how there was no consensus in the scientific community and you went on to link the wikipedia page which actually disproved your own point. To refresh your memory, the link said that list included people who believed that CO2 was having an effect, they simply disagreed about how much of an effect and/or what could be done about it.

Not to mention that that list was already quite short and included a lot of quacks.

My first post on page 8.

You claimed I hadn't answered Morlock's question and proceeded to link what the OP had linked.

Since I did answer his question (a "yes" is an answer whether you think it is or not) and since the link only dealt with data from 2003 on compared to my graph which dealt with 1950 on (and included "your data"), you were again proved wrong.

And cooling, and warming, and cooling, etc. All due to natural climate change.

The existence of natural climate change does not preclude the possibility that human induced factors can affect it.

You have to come up with own, new junk science arguements to promote. I've proved you wrong, and now wait for you to try something new.

You've done nothing of the sort. But feel free to continue believing that you have.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

You handled every argument?

You cant even read half of them correctly

Says the person who doesn't even respond to rebuttals.

[Bradd]

Reading through the morlock's posts in this thread makes me think he is probably going to hit breaking point soon, I'm hoping for some sort of suicide *fingers crossed*

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by Bradd

Reading through the morlock's posts in this thread makes me think he is probably going to hit breaking point soon, I'm hoping for some sort of suicide *fingers crossed*

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

The point of the analogy was to show how ridiculous your logic is.

My logic has been proven, yet your attempt at a corresponding analogy was piss-poor.

You can't go from the statement "that the earth was warmer in the past" to the statement "thus man-made global warming doesn't occur". It doesn't follow logically.

You really are that stupid, huh? Go back and look at the chart again. Then, come back here and explain to us how the few little tribes scattered around the world back then managed to raise the global temperature.... If you can't, then you'll finally understand the point, and we'll consider it an accomplishment, finally, that you learned something.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

The one witha graph showing how temperatures fluctuated in the past. Yes, I saw it. It doesn't disprove that CO2 could contribute to warming now.

It does because CO2 didn't contribute to warming 4-8K years ago.

Your first post was a graph over a 10 year period. Not only was that quite short

It was long enough to prove my point.

, but it doesn't account for ocean warming,

Which is good, given the oceans are actually cooling.

The Oceans Have Stopped Warming!
Something isn’t following the Greenhouse script. The oceans, which contain 80 to 90 percent of the planet’s heat, have recently stopped warming! Over the past 4-5 years, “there has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,” Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory recently told National Public Radio. Nothing very significant-except the ocean warming trend has stopped?! This, in the midst of the biggest furor over global temperatures and climate overheating in human history? Willis monitors the data from a nifty new set of Argo ocean buoys. They not only record sea surface temperatures but periodically dive 3,000 feet under water and record sub-surface temperatures as they rise back up. These wonderful new Argo floats say the oceans have been cooling slightly for the past 4-5 years, instead of accentuating a continuing global warming trend.

http://www.icecap.us/

gives only a snapshot of the global picture,

It shows temp vs. CO2, which is the whole point (quit trying to spin your way out after you've been proven wrong).

and doesn't actually prove CO2 has no effect.

Look at the green line which keys to CO2, you . It proves that CO2 has no affect on temperatures.

Your second post was about how there was no consensus in the scientific community and you went on to link the wikipedia page which actually disproved your own point.

That link is part of my proof that proves my point that there is no "consesus" because there are scientists that believe either/or that
A)

global warming is not occurring or has ceased

B)

Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate

C)

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

D)

Believe cause of global warming is unknown

Not to mention that that list was already quite short and included a lot of quacks.

Quacks? Because they're laughing at simpletons like you and at Gore goofy movie? It's a fact that they are: 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.......

So, yeah..... we'll let you sit in the corner with your dunce cap on for a while.

Oh, and those are just the first link showing 38. How did you ever manage to "overlook" my other link proving 400 more scientists say man-made global warming is , and before the Senate.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

Hmmm?

You claimed I hadn't answered Morlock's question and proceeded to link what the OP had linked....

Except that you didn't answer his question, because you were proven wrong. And I showed proof that our oceans are cooling (as I did for the final time earlier in this post).

The existence of natural climate change does not preclude the possibility that human induced factors can affect it.

You're the one following Gore's junk science fad. The burden of proof is on you.

You've done nothing of the sort. But feel free to continue believing that you have.

And you remain proven wrong, so still we wait.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

My logic has been proven, yet your attempt at a corresponding analogy was piss-poor.

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

You really are that stupid, huh? Go back and look at the chart again. Then, come back here and explain to us how the few little tribes scattered around the world back then managed to raise the global temperature.... If you can't, then you'll finally understand the point, and we'll consider it an accomplishment, finally, that you learned something.

And therein lies your error. You seem to think I'm saying ancient tribes raised the global temperature. I'm not. I'm saying just because the temperature did rise back then without lots of CO2 doesn't mean the temperatures won't rise today with CO2. The natural conditions simply aren't the same today as they were in the past.

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?

The answer, of course, is no. The conditions on earth weren't the same now as they were then, so CO2 as a causal mechanism has not been ruled out.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

It does because CO2 didn't contribute to warming 4-8K years ago.

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

It was long enough to prove my point.

No, actually, it wasn't. I showed you a 50 year graph you showed me a 10 year graph. Which do you think is more informative about trends in warming?

Which is good, given the oceans are actually cooling.

http://www.icecap.us/

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.

It shows temp vs. CO2, which is the whole point (quit trying to spin your way out after you've been proven wrong).

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

Look at the green line which keys to CO2, you . It proves that CO2 has no affect on temperatures.

No, it doesn't. There are any number of reasons why CO2/temperature might drop in the short term while the other rises.

That link is part of my proof that proves my point that there is no "consesus"

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

Quacks? Because they're laughing at simpletons like you and at Gore goofy movie? It's a fact that they are: 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.......

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

So, yeah..... we'll let you sit in the corner with your dunce cap on for a while.

Oh, and those are just the first link showing 38. How did you ever manage to "overlook" my other link proving 400 more scientists say man-made global warming is , and before the Senate.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

Hmmm?

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

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

Except that you didn't answer his question, because you were proven wrong. And I showed proof that our oceans are cooling (as I did for the final time earlier in this post).

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.

Your "proof", for the 5th or 6th time now, is over a 10 year period whereas mine is over a 50 year period. Mine shows an overall increase in temperature over that amount of time. So when asked "has the earth warmed in the past 50 years?" my graph actually answers that question. At best, your graph answers the question "has the earth warmed in the past 10 years".

You're the one following Gore's junk science fad. The burden of proof is on you.

And you remain proven wrong, so still we wait.

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

[TheMorlock]

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.



And therein lies your error. You seem to think I'm saying ancient tribes raised the global temperature. I'm not. I'm saying just because the temperature did rise back then without lots of CO2 doesn't mean the temperatures won't rise today with CO2. The natural conditions simply aren't the same today as they were in the past.

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?

The answer, of course, is no. The conditions on earth weren't the same now as they were then, so CO2 as a causal mechanism has not been ruled out.

I know your reading comprehension is not all that great but now you seem to be completely braindead.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

I know your reading comprehension is not all that great but now you seem to be completely braindead.

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?

Fact is, you cannot rule out CO2 as a cause of warming simply because temperatures happened to drop in the past while CO2 remained high. Something else, like increased volcanic activity, could have made things cooler back then. And you can use the same logic for past increases in temperatures sans CO2.

Try not to hurt yourself when you realize I'm right.

P.S. And I'll be happy to accept an avatar from you too - my title is getting lonely all by itself.