Interesting read re. Global warming

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,750
4,822
113
Here's the difference.
Skeptics are paid by the fossil fuel industry to promote views, not science.
Scientists are paid by the government to supply provable work.

And if you check the money behind each, you'll find that the fossil fuel crowd is pretty well paid.

But back to the original point.
you were caught out with a false premise and false assumption and instead of admitting you were wrong have instead just tried to change the subject
No I didnt. I admitted I used the wrong graph. But China did triple their CO2 output, and the proper graph I posted afterwards showed an almost doubling of CO2 from 5,000 million metric tons to 9,000 million metric tons of global CO2 output.

So that still means worldwide CO2 was almost doubled over the last 16 years, which brings me back to my original point, which was that IMO temperatures shouldve also increased over same period.

You claim some type of "lag period", I disagree with your lag period. You claim global warming will get really bad, I disagree with that too. And so do these scientists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
 
Last edited:

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
No I didnt. I admitted I used the wrong graph. But China did triple their CO2 output, and the proper graph I posted afterwards showed an almost doubling of CO2 from 5,000 million metric tons to 9,000 million metric tons of global CO2 output.

So that still means worldwide CO2 was almost doubled over the last 16 years, which brings me back to my original point, which was that IMO temperatures shouldve also increased over same period.

You claim some type of "lag period", I disagree with your lag period. You claim global warming will get really bad, I disagree with that too. And so do these scientists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
You claimed 3 times with a false chart.
Changed it to 2 times with another unsourced chart.
I supplied IAEA numbers which show only about a 30% growth over the same time period.

You are still wrong on point one of your question.

You are also wrong in your statement that temperatures haven't risen, using only cherry picked dates.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,750
4,822
113
^^^^^^^^^

groggy, I'll get to your pathetic drivel tomorrow when I have more time.

And trust me, its pathetic allright
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
I can prove this whole global warming thing is hysteria.

Due to Russia, India and China joining the industrial revolution late in 1993, we have tripled CO2 output the last 16 years or so. So if we have tripled CO2 we should also see a rise in temperatures, and yet we see nothing.

I'm still waiting for this proof.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,750
4,822
113
Okay groggy, lets try this again:

FACT 1: China has tripled its CO2 output the last 16 years.

FACT 2: The world in total has about doubled its CO2 output the last 16 years.

FACT 3: There has been no warming in the last 16 years.

FACT 4: IPCC knew this and tried to cover it up (Climategate). I quote "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"

FACT 5: Phil Jones admitted there's been no global warming last 15 years: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

FACT 6: Many scientists are now turning against all the dire global warming predictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

So IMO, if the world had doubled its CO2 output the last 16 years, we should have seen some warming, and yet we see nothing! And I'm not buying your "lag period" theory, and apparently neither are all the scientists who are now turning against global warming
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,085
1
0
Okay groggy, lets try this again:

FACT 1: China has tripled its CO2 output the last 16 years.

FACT 2: The world in total has about doubled its CO2 output the last 16 years.

FACT 3: There has been no warming in the last 16 years.

FACT 4: IPCC knew this and tried to cover it up (Climategate). I quote "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"

FACT 5: Phil Jones admitted there's been no global warming last 15 years: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

FACT 6: Many scientists are now turning against all the dire global warming predictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

So IMO, if the world had doubled its CO2 output the last 16 years, we should have seen some warming, and yet we see nothing! And I'm not buying your "lag period" theory, and apparently neither are all the scientists who are now turning against global warming
Most if which have been handled earlier in the thread and others and shown to be wanting. Repeating them won't change that. The 16 year timeline has been shown to be cherry picked m, but you still keep throwing it out as a viable.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,750
4,822
113
Most if which have been handled earlier in the thread and others and shown to be wanting. Repeating them won't change that. The 16 year timeline has been shown to be cherry picked m, but you still keep throwing it out as a viable.
Not really, I'm just stating my opinion on the whole thing.

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,750
4,822
113

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
I dont give a shit what you choose to accept, rockie.

As I said before, there are others who share the same opinion. And I think they probably know a bit more about the subject than you and groggy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
97% of scientists who study the climate support the findings of the IPCC.
I'm sure that you're the type that if 97% of doctors told you that eating lead will kill you, you'll find some proto-Roman diet from some quack on the internet and follow it to its logical end. That's your right, but you can't characterize the debate as between equal groups. You're just supporting 3 in every 100.

Now, back to your points.
1) - so?
2) - wrong, IAEA data linked earlier showed you are wrong.
3) - wrong, as shown above, this is cherry picking at its worst. Global temperature is still rising and the number of record breaking years in the last decade show this.
4) - wrong, vindicated by all investigations
5) - wrong and not even worth arguing, see #4
6) - many = 3% and your list is mostly quacks and non-climatologists. I can provide a list of organizations that has more names then those individuals.

Still pushing nothing that invalidates the science, only a bunch of internet based falsehoods that have been repeatedly debunked.
 

whitewaterguy

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2005
3,190
21
48
i'm finally convinced global warming is for real. Thats it, tomorrow i am tossing out all my down coats, high tech gloves, and selling my skis..i mean really...whats the point?
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,085
1
0
I dont give a shit what you choose to accept, rockie.

As I said before, there are others who share the same opinion. And I think they probably know a bit more about the subject than you and groggy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
It's not my opinion that has dealt with your points, it's the facts from said scientist, many of whom are actually climatologist, 97% of whom understand that climate change is a fact, and some of whom I've actually worked with and respect highly.

Here's the criteria for making your list of oooow, 25 scientists; same source

The scientists listed in this article have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of these 3 main conclusions. Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement.

In contrast, from the same source, establishing the mainstream scientific assessment, climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming were as follows:
1. The global average surface temperaturehas risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[SUP][3][/SUP]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[SUP][4][/SUP]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[SUP][A][/SUP] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[SUP][5][/SUP] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.[SUP][6][/SUP]
These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations.[SUP][7]

Thanks for the source.[/SUP]
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,085
1
0
i'm finally convinced global warming is for real. Thats it, tomorrow i am tossing out all my down coats, high tech gloves, and selling my skis..i mean really...whats the point?
Well, that pretty well sums up your grasp on reality and the crown of TERB's Drama Queen since Pekkerhead has village idiot sewn up. Back in your crate.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
It is nice to know that the skeptic movement remains irrational.

Try this question. Does even the existence of the Nobel Prize tend to prove or disprove man made global warming?
The Nobel Peace Prize certainly doesn't. Some would argue it doesn't even speak to "peace" all that well these days.

So why mention Mann's claims? It goes to credibility, as the lawyers like to say.
 

whitewaterguy

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2005
3,190
21
48
Well, that pretty well sums up your grasp on reality and the crown of TERB's Drama Queen since Pekkerhead has village idiot sewn up. Back in your crate.
i am glad you got that out of your system. hope you are thoroughly enjoying your reality doughboy
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,750
4,822
113
97% of scientists who study the climate support the findings of the IPCC.
I'm sure that you're the type that if 97% of doctors told you that eating lead will kill you, you'll find some proto-Roman diet from some quack on the internet and follow it to its logical end. That's your right, but you can't characterize the debate as between equal groups. You're just supporting 3 in every 100.

Now, back to your points.
1) - so?
2) - wrong, IAEA data linked earlier showed you are wrong.
3) - wrong, as shown above, this is cherry picking at its worst. Global temperature is still rising and the number of record breaking years in the last decade show this.
4) - wrong, vindicated by all investigations
5) - wrong and not even worth arguing, see #4
6) - many = 3% and your list is mostly quacks and non-climatologists. I can provide a list of organizations that has more names then those individuals.

Still pushing nothing that invalidates the science, only a bunch of internet based falsehoods that have been repeatedly debunked
Just because a majority of scientists think global warming is real, doesnt mean they're right. Many years ago most people thought earth was flat, and the Sun revolved around the earth. Were they right too??

Also the fact that more and more scientists are now turning their backs on the GW movement shoudld tell you something
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
Just because a majority of scientists think global warming is real, doesnt mean they're right. Many years ago most people thought earth was flat, and the Sun revolved around the earth. Were they right too??

Also the fact that more and more scientists are now turning their backs on the GW movement shoudld tell you something
Prove to me that its more and more, because it looks to me like less and less.
As for the shape of the world, you are talking mostly about the christian church, not scientists.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,085
1
0
Just because a majority of scientists think global warming is real, doesnt mean they're right. Many years ago most people thought earth was flat, and the Sun revolved around the earth. Were they right too??

Also the fact that more and more scientists are now turning their backs on the GW movement shoudld tell you something
A majority? 97% is not 'just' a majority, please. Since the flat earth theory was common we have learn so much more and understand so much more. You are looking really weak now.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts