Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[BartW]

If you "had" proved your point a long time ago then why stick around & continue to act like a fool with your graphs & silly little pictures that we care nothing about to see & it proves nothing? You are what's called "redundant" in the answers you give & it really gets old seeing you say those answers over & over. Okay, we get it.

The answer is in the post you quoted - I’m having fun. But I agree, this conversation is getting redundant. Y’all keep going in circles with your denialist talking points. I’ve refuted them all multiple times, but nobody ever tries to counter my rebuttals (or even reads them probably). Nobody ever answers my questions.

If you folks will let this thread die I will too. That would be preferable – this thread reflects poorly on our university, our state, and our country. But as long as people keep spewing ridiculous falsehoods like “the ban on DDT killed millions” I’m going to stick around to make fun of them.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

The answer is in the post you quoted - I’m having fun. But I agree, this conversation is getting redundant. Y’all keep going in circles with your denialist talking points. I’ve refuted them all multiple times, but nobody ever tries to counter my rebuttals (or even reads them probably). Nobody ever answers my questions.

If you folks will let this thread die I will too. That would be preferable – this thread reflects poorly on our university, our state, and our country. But as long as people keep spewing ridiculous falsehoods like “the ban on DDT killed millions” I’m going to stick around to make fun of them.

I'm having fun too.

 

[Obsessed]

DDT was never banned for use against malaria. DDT was banned for agricultral use under the Stockholm Convention. DDT is still used for disease vector control around the world today. It's lost popularity in fighting malaria because (a) mosquitos have developed widespread resistance to DDT and (b) there are more cost-effective alternatives. In fact it was the indiscriminate overuse of DDT in agriculture that caused widespread resistance in mosquitos - if it weren't for the agricultural bans, we wouldn't be able to use DDT against malaria at all.

I'm glad you don't deny the other scientific facts though. But it's odd that you find a DDT conspiracy theorist that believes in evolution. You'll have to take that up with your 'skeptic' pals.

DDT is not used the same way it was back in the day.

Don't act like I can go to Walmart in Africa and pick up a quart.

 

[BartW]

DDT is not used the same way it was back in the day.

Don't act like I can go to Walmart in Africa and pick up a quart.

...

Unless you’ve got the hookup from the gubment you can’t get it to spray your crops, no. But it is an option for fighting malaria. However, there has been widespread mosquito resistance to DDT for decades, and it’s not exactly cost effective to spray millions of square miles of African and Amazonian jungle where communities are spread over vast tracts of land. The WHO gave up on global eradication of malaria through insecticides years ago. You can’t possibly be defending the DDT conspiracy theory?

 

[zreeves]

http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2013/Individual%20PDFs/53_fy2013.pdf

i have been lurking on the thread and i don't feel like arguing with anyone. everyone is going to think whatever they want. i just wanted you all to see that the grant money for climate/ocean related science last year (if you assume all oceanic science and atmospheric science relate to climate change, which it doesn't) is $600 million in grants. These grants fund professors salaries, equipment, research, grad students blah blah blah, so it really isn't a huge amount of money relatively speaking. for reference, here is the amount paid in agricultural subsidies in 2004 (which im sure is higher now)

Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes it is wikipedia, i am being lazy. i just wanted to say the amount of money that goes into climate research really is a drop in the bucket of the sciences and government spending in general. i also wanted to ask a few questions that i would appreciate answers to if you all don't mind.

1. how come you are all so opposed to making decisions based on the best estimates science has to offer? im not saying break the bank or anything and yes science is sometimes wrong and consistently being updated, but why not make decisions based on the best available data we have?

2. is there anything that would make you believe global warming and any other theories you dont believe in? evolution etc?

3. do you think science is a waste of money/time in general?

4. do science and religion have to be mutually exclusive if that is your reason for being opposed to it?

i am just curious, i dont want to argue and i most likely wont respond unless you specifically ask me to, but i will read all of your answers. TIA for answering :hi:

also bart isnt saying the world will end. just that our way of life will be significantly altered assuming the scienctific predictions are fulfilled. i think it is comparable to the symptoms of a virus that humans experience. a human gets a fever, throwing up, blah blah blah and the virus dies, the human doesnt. of course in this case humans would be the virus and the earth would be the human...although we certainly are a highly adaptive virus and maybe you are all right we would adjust quickly enough to maintain our style of life. anyway i probably wont post again because i dont want to argue. i really am just curious as to what your guys perspective is for being so strongly opposed to the science

happy saint pattys day and thanks for answering my questions (assuming you dont personally attack me)

 

[Obsessed]

...

Unless you’ve got the hookup from the gubment you can’t get it to spray your crops, no. But it is an option for fighting malaria. However, there has been widespread mosquito resistance to DDT for decades, and it’s not exactly cost effective to spray millions of square miles of African and Amazonian jungle where communities are spread over vast tracts of land. The WHO gave up on global eradication of malaria through insecticides years ago. You can’t possibly be defending the DDT conspiracy theory?

The only way it's used ( 3rd world) is painted on to walls. Much like a termite treatment is done.

 

[Sandvol]

I'd like to return to this post, because I don't think I did it justice.

Australia’s hottest year
The most extreme heat was in Australia, which suffered its hottest year on record (1.20°C above the 1961-1990 average), frequent heatwaves, and warmer than average temperatures throughout the year. Again, the Australian heat occurred despite the neutral Southern Oscillation. Australia broke all of the following records in 2013:

• Hottest national average daily maximum temperature (40.30°C on 7 January)
• Seven consecutive days of national average maximum temperature over 39°C (2–8 January)
• Hottest January
• Hottest month ever (January)
• Hottest January sea surface temperature in surrounding seas
• Hottest February sea surface temperature in surrounding seas
• Hottest summer (December 2012–February 2013)
• Record-breaking March heatwave in Melbourne
• Tasmania’s hottest March
• Hottest northern wet season (October 2012–April 2013)
• South Australia’s 3rd warmest autumn (March–May)
• 2nd hottest first half of a calendar year (January–June)
• 3rd warmest winter (June–August)
• Warmest winter day (29.92°C on 31 August)
• Warmest September
• Warmest month after removing the seasonal cycle (2.75°C above average in September)
• South Australia’s previous record warm September exceeded by an unprecedented almost 2°C (5.39°C above average)
• Hottest 12-month period (record broken three times: September 2012–August 2013, then October 2012–September 2013, then November 2012–October 2013)
• 2nd hottest November sea surface temperature in surrounding seas
• Warmest spring (September–November)

Yet another Australian heatwave began on 27 December, continuing into January 2014 and breaking records in many places. It was soon followed by one of southeast Australia’s most significant heatwaves (13–18 January 2014), killing almost 400 Australians and rivalling the 2009 heatwave that caused the Black Saturday bushfires.

Beyond Australia
Parts of central Asia, Ethiopia, and Tanzania suffered record heat. Greenland recorded its warmest air temperature (25.9°C on 30 July). In August, China saw one of its worst ever heatwaves, killing over 40 people. Russia experienced its hottest November and December (with Siberia 9°C above average in December). Few parts of the world were cooler than average, and nowhere experienced record cold.

Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, Southern, and western Pacific surface temperatures were all warmer than average. The warm oceans helped fuel an above-average North Pacific typhoon season. Typhoon Haiyan was the strongest tropical cyclone ever to make landfall, killing over 5,700. Although global precipitation was near-average, extreme flooding and drought occurred in many parts of the world.

The most notable cold weather that occurred in 2013 was actually a side effect of global warming. The unusual Arctic warmth led to a record negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation in which cold Arctic air moved south (like a freezer door being left open). This in turn caused a cold northern spring in the US and Europe. This “warm Arctic, cold continents” phenomenon has occurred in several recent years and may be a permanent shift in weather patterns. Unfortunately this means North America, the hub of climate change denial, is experiencing consistently cold winters while the rest of the Earth’s surface cooks.

Global warming not slowing - it's speeding up

Australian Temperature Records Refuting AGW



Headline: “NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record.”
Well, not so in several Australian rural temperature records. “Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely,” (per NASA press release) the current decade in Australia is 0.6-0.7 deg C cooler than it was in 1881-1890. This estimate is derived from the annual Mean Maximum Temperatures provided by the Bureau of Meteorology for the following meteorological stations: #61055, 46043, 55023, 58012, 64008, 69018, 75031, 83025, 84016, 85096, 90015. These rural stations have temperature records dating back to at least 1881. Long-standing urban stations based at airports or in major cities such as #38003, 61055, 66062, 80015, 86071, and 94029 are not included due to local “urban heat island” effects at these hot spots, which would have artificially inflated estimates by an average 1 degree C this century. Graphs below obtained from the Australian Meteorology Bureau site.
Australian Temperature Records Refuting AGW

 

[BartW]

The only way it's used ( 3rd world) is painted on to walls. Much like a termite treatment is done.

The WHO used aircraft and vehicular spraying as well in their malaria eradication campaign. But you’re right, it is primarily applied by IRS. Still, the WHO scaled back their DDT use (and gave up on the malaria eradication campaign entirely) due to resistance years before it was banned for agriculture.

Australian Temperature Records Refuting AGW
Headline: “NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record.”
Well, not so in several Australian rural temperature records. “Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely,” (per NASA press release) the current decade in Australia is 0.6-0.7 deg C cooler than it was in 1881-1890. This estimate is derived from the annual Mean Maximum Temperatures provided by the Bureau of Meteorology for the following meteorological stations: #61055, 46043, 55023, 58012, 64008, 69018, 75031, 83025, 84016, 85096, 90015. These rural stations have temperature records dating back to at least 1881. Long-standing urban stations based at airports or in major cities such as #38003, 61055, 66062, 80015, 86071, and 94029 are not included due to local “urban heat island” effects at these hot spots, which would have artificially inflated estimates by an average 1 degree C this century. Graphs below obtained from the Australian Meteorology Bureau site.

Sandvol, you really need to get a better skeptic website to copypaste. Hockeyschtick is second tier. It's so easy to debunk all the ridiculous BS you repost. Any monkey with internet access could do it, including you. Is fact-checking really that much to ask?

From the Australian Meteorology Bureau site:

2013 was Australia’s warmest year since records began in 1910. Mean temperatures across Australia have generally been well above average since September 2012. Long periods of warmer-than-average days have been common, with a distinct lack of cold weather. Nights have also been warmer than average, but less so than days.

The Australian area-averaged mean temperature for 2013 was +1.20 °C above the 1961–1990 average. Maximum temperatures were +1.45 °C above average, and minimum temperatures +0.94 °C above average. Temperatures were above average across nearly all of Australia for maximum, mean and minimum temperatures, with large areas of inland and southern Australia experiencing the highest on record for each.

Australia has experienced just one cooler-than-average year (2011) in the last decade. The 10-year mean temperature for 2004–2013 was 0.50 °C above average, the equal-highest on record. Averages for each of the ten-year periods from 1995–2004 to 2004–2013 have been amongst the top ten records.

Annual climate statement 2013

Additionally, from the poorly (or purposefully mis-) quoted NASA press release:

A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.

"There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."

NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years

And the urban heat island effect (a rather outdated skeptic talking point) has little to no impact on temperature trends.

Would you like to weigh in on the DDT conspiracy, since you were the first person in this thread to propound it?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Holy retard batman! You have repeated yourself so long in this thread that it broke my phone and Al Gores interwebz just trying to get caught up. Nobody here believes you. Dig a shelter chicken little. We will be watching football....wtf

 

[BartW]

http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2013/Individual%20PDFs/53_fy2013.pdf

i have been lurking on the thread and i don't feel like arguing with anyone. everyone is going to think whatever they want. i just wanted you all to see that the grant money for climate/ocean related science last year (if you assume all oceanic science and atmospheric science relate to climate change, which it doesn't) is $600 million in grants. These grants fund professors salaries, equipment, research, grad students blah blah blah, so it really isn't a huge amount of money relatively speaking. for reference, here is the amount paid in agricultural subsidies in 2004 (which im sure is higher now)

Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes it is wikipedia, i am being lazy. i just wanted to say the amount of money that goes into climate research really is a drop in the bucket of the sciences and government spending in general. i also wanted to ask a few questions that i would appreciate answers to if you all don't mind.

1. how come you are all so opposed to making decisions based on the best estimates science has to offer? im not saying break the bank or anything and yes science is sometimes wrong and consistently being updated, but why not make decisions based on the best available data we have?

2. is there anything that would make you believe global warming and any other theories you dont believe in? evolution etc?

3. do you think science is a waste of money/time in general?

4. do science and religion have to be mutually exclusive if that is your reason for being opposed to it?

i am just curious, i dont want to argue and i most likely wont respond unless you specifically ask me to, but i will read all of your answers. TIA for answering :hi:

also bart isnt saying the world will end. just that our way of life will be significantly altered assuming the scienctific predictions are fulfilled. i think it is comparable to the symptoms of a virus that humans experience. a human gets a fever, throwing up, blah blah blah and the virus dies, the human doesnt. of course in this case humans would be the virus and the earth would be the human...although we certainly are a highly adaptive virus and maybe you are all right we would adjust quickly enough to maintain our style of life. anyway i probably wont post again because i dont want to argue. i really am just curious as to what your guys perspective is for being so strongly opposed to the science

happy saint pattys day and thanks for answering my questions (assuming you dont personally attack me)

Good luck having your questions answered Zac

You’ll get flamed for the virus analogy. I think it’s fair (though viruses can't die) but it's probably not a good analogy to use with these people. Many have a Dominionist/Anthropist outlook that Earth was created by God for people to exploit, and that people can't possibly mess up the planet because God wouldn't allow it. And regarding #4, I think many here do believe science and religion are diametrically opposed. It's a well-described mindset called Conflict Thesis. The rational religious response to science is to incorporate it into your belief system thumbsup: Buddhists), but some people (especially bible belters) simply reject everything that doesn't reinforce their immutable worldview. Conspiracy theories are their way of coping.

I’m not religion bashing, and I apologize if it comes off that way. This is an unbiased observation. For those who think this post is a shot at them, I’ll repeat what I said to Gramps:

While you certainly have the right to believe whatever you want, it would be unwise to base policy on such speculation.

There's a christian counter-movement born out of an alternative interpretation of that same piece of scripture called Stewardship or Evangelical Environmentalism. I think you'd be interested in hearing these perspectives. This very relevant post is worth a read too:

Christian Evangelicalism and Climate Change Denial

 

[Orangeslice13]

For the love of junk science stop quoting yourself Bart.
We all knew it was crap the first time you posted it.

 

[zreeves]

Good luck having your questions answered Zac

You’ll get flamed for the virus analogy. I think it’s fair (though viruses can't die) but it's probably not a good analogy to use with these people. Many have a Dominionist/Anthropist outlook that Earth was created by God for people to exploit, and that people can't possibly mess up the planet because God wouldn't allow it. And regarding #4, I think many here do believe science and religion are diametrically opposed. It's a well-described mindset called Conflict Thesis. The rational religious response to science is to incorporate it into your belief system thumbsup: Buddhists), but some people (especially bible belters) simply reject everything that doesn't reinforce their immutable worldview. Conspiracy theories are their way of coping.

I’m not religion bashing, and I apologize if it comes off that way. This is an unbiased observation. For those who think this post is a shot at them, I’ll repeat what I said to Gramps:

ThanksBart I am just curious if global warming is the only science they don't support or just science in general. If they don't support scientific theories in general like evolution and the big bang etc, then this thread should just be left to die

 

[FLVOL_79]

ThanksBart I am just curious if global warming is the only science they don't support or just science in general. If they don't support scientific theories in general like evolution and the big bang etc, then this thread should just be left to die

Believing something built on agenda driven junk science is silly..like Global Warming. It became widely known as fraudulent when people started saying "climate change". Thats an ambiguous enough term that the lib's can probably milk it for 30 more years.

 

[Orangeslice13]

ThanksBart I am just curious if global warming is the only science they don't support or just science in general. If they don't support scientific theories in general like evolution and the big bang etc, then this thread should just be left to die

Climate change is real. Claiming we know that man is causing it is silly. We can't predict the weather 5 days from now. We have not been studing this topic long enough to "know" jack squatt. Tell me what you think might be happening and I'll listen to your point of view. Start saying things like "scientific fact" and I'll treat you as the zellot nut bag that you are.

 

[Sandvol]

I know it isn’t worth trying to explain to you people, but this is the difference between “global warming” and “climate change”. Overall, Earth is warming. But it doesn’t warm uniformly. Some places cool, while most places warm. Just because the jet stream moved further south over the eastern US this winter doesn’t mean the planet as a whole was cold. You may not realize this, but the world is bigger than Tennessee.

This is precious coming from some bozo who doesn't even "GET OUT OF HIS APARTMENT! I guess we need to become enlightened like Amsterdam.

 

[Sandvol]

The WHO used aircraft and vehicular spraying as well in their malaria eradication campaign. But you’re right, it is primarily applied by IRS. Still, the WHO scaled back their DDT use (and gave up on the malaria eradication campaign entirely) due to resistance years before it was banned for agriculture.



Sandvol, you really need to get a better skeptic website to copypaste. Hockeyschtick is second tier. It's so easy to debunk all the ridiculous BS you repost. Any monkey with internet access could do it, including you. Is fact-checking really that much to ask?

From the Australian Meteorology Bureau site:

2013 was Australia’s warmest year since records began in 1910. Mean temperatures across Australia have generally been well above average since September 2012. Long periods of warmer-than-average days have been common, with a distinct lack of cold weather. Nights have also been warmer than average, but less so than days.

The Australian area-averaged mean temperature for 2013 was +1.20 °C above the 1961–1990 average. Maximum temperatures were +1.45 °C above average, and minimum temperatures +0.94 °C above average. Temperatures were above average across nearly all of Australia for maximum, mean and minimum temperatures, with large areas of inland and southern Australia experiencing the highest on record for each.

Australia has experienced just one cooler-than-average year (2011) in the last decade. The 10-year mean temperature for 2004–2013 was 0.50 °C above average, the equal-highest on record. Averages for each of the ten-year periods from 1995–2004 to 2004–2013 have been amongst the top ten records.

Annual climate statement 2013

Additionally, from the poorly (or purposefully mis-) quoted NASA press release:

A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.

"There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."

NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years

And the urban heat island effect (a rather outdated skeptic talking point) has little to no impact on temperature trends.

Would you like to weigh in on the DDT conspiracy, since you were the first person in this thread to propound it?

Coming from someone who keeps pasting Kevin Drum's distorted spliced chart. You hypocritical psychopath.

 

[BartW]

Believing something built on agenda driven junk science is silly..like Global Warming. It became widely known as fraudulent when people started saying "climate change". Thats an ambiguous enough term that the lib's can probably milk it for 30 more years.

False. I've addressed this myth several times. 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming' have two different though related meanings. I've explained it as recently as post #2565 (shown in SV's quote below). Scientists have been using the term climate change longer than they have global warming. Dumb myth is dumb. Here's a google scholar search history:

Global Warming vs. Climate Change

For the love of junk science stop quoting yourself Bart.
We all knew it was crap the first time you posted it.

Maybe if people didn't post the same previously debunked 'skeptic' hogwash over and over I wouldn't have to quote myself.

Climate change is real. Claiming we know that man is causing it is silly. We can't predict the weather 5 days from now. We have not been studing this topic long enough to "know" jack squatt. Tell me what you think might be happening and I'll listen to your point of view. Start saying things like "scientific fact" and I'll treat you as the zellot nut bag that you are.

There is spectroscopic proof global warming is being caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. There's isotopic proof that the rise in greenhouse gases is due to human emissions. Ipso facto human emissions are causing global warming. Try refuting either point. What's that, you can't? Because you don't understand the science? Must be a conspiracy

I know it isn’t worth trying to explain to you people, but this is the difference between “global warming” and “climate change”. Overall, Earth is warming. But it doesn’t warm uniformly. Some places cool, while most places warm. Just because the jet stream moved further south over the eastern US this winter doesn’t mean the planet as a whole was cold. You may not realize this, but the world is bigger than Tennessee.

This is precious coming from some bozo who doesn't even "GET OUT OF HIS APARTMENT! I guess we need to become enlightened like Amsterdam.

It's the rainy season, get off my nuts. Enlightenment would do you good.

 

[BartW]

 

[Sandvol]

False. I've addressed this myth several times. 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming' have two different though related meanings. I've explained it as recently as post #2565 (shown in SV's quote below). Scientists have been using the term climate change longer than they have global warming. Dumb myth is dumb. Here's a google scholar search history:

Global Warming vs. Climate Change



Maybe if people didn't post the same previously debunked 'skeptic' hogwash over and over I wouldn't have to quote myself.



There is spectroscopic proof global warming is being caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. There's isotopic proof that the rise in greenhouse gases is due to human emissions. Ipso facto human emissions are causing global warming. Try refuting either point. What's that, you can't? Because you don't understand the science? Must be a conspiracy



It's the rainy season, get off my nuts. Enlightenment would do you good.

You cut and paste and regurgitate the talking points from Skeptical Science pretty well you hypocrite.

 

[Sandvol]

First Thomas Aquinas and now Dalai Lama. Is Jesus Christ next? The depth of your psychosis is apparent you kook.

 

[Orangeslice13]

False. I've addressed this myth several times. 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming' have two different though related meanings. I've explained it as recently as post #2565 (shown in SV's quote below). Scientists have been using the term climate change longer than they have global warming. Dumb myth is dumb. Here's a google scholar search history:

Global Warming vs. Climate Change



Maybe if people didn't post the same previously debunked 'skeptic' hogwash over and over I wouldn't have to quote myself.



There is spectroscopic proof global warming is being caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. There's isotopic proof that the rise in greenhouse gases is due to human emissions. Ipso facto human emissions are causing global warming. Try refuting either point. What's that, you can't? Because you don't understand the science? Must be a conspiracy



It's the rainy season, get off my nuts. Enlightenment would do you good.

* proof=suggests.
** suggests= subject to change as our understanding increases.


You should lean, and use the phrase "we believe" instead of "scientifc fact". It will make you appear to be less of a wack job.

 

[BartW]

Coming from someone who keeps pasting Kevin Drum's distorted spliced chart. You hypocritical psychopath.

You cut and paste and regurgitate the talking points from Skeptical Science pretty well you hypocrite.

First Thomas Aquinas and now Dalai Lama. Is Jesus Christ next? The depth of your psychosis is apparent you kook.

Ad hom, ad hom, ad hom. I can't remember the last time you posted something of substance. SS cites peer-reviewed literature and is convenient for debunking the stupider myths like "Scientists relabeled Global Warming as Climate Change to trick people," but it's by no means the only resource I use. You, on the other hand, exclusively copypaste from Hockeyschtick without doing any analysis of your own. If you believe the content of my posts is false, show me how instead of name-calling like a whiny b!tch and recycling debunked 'skeptic' talking points.

 

[BartW]

* proof=suggests.
** suggests= subject to change as our understanding increases.


You should lean, and use the phrase "we believe" instead of "scientifc fact". It will make you appear to be less of a wack job.

That wouldn't be doing the science justice. The spectroscopic and isotopic evidence is undeniable. There are still specifics to work out like exactly how much will we warm and what will be the effects, but AGW is both theory and fact like gravity or evolution. Misrepresenting scientific uncertainty as actual doubt is dishonest.

Spectroscopy and stable-isotope geochemistry were developed and have a wide range of applications independent of climate science. It's not speculation. Nobody is going to "disprove" spectroscopy or stable-isotope geochemistry.

 

[MG1968]

ThanksBart I am just curious if global warming is the only science they don't support or just science in general. If they don't support scientific theories in general like evolution and the big bang etc, then this thread should just be left to die

get your theories straight, the skepticism regarding the theory of anthropogenic global warming is what we're talking about

there is no debate about climate change, the debate is whether or not man is having an effect and if so, how much

bart is quite capable of patting himself on the back, you don't need to be his little cheerleader

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Hey BartW, do you get out much to post in other threads on this message board? If not you should. You've become a resident poster that lives in this thread. I don't see much of you anywhere else......I guess that's a good thing for us though. Have a nice day bro.