Maybe you should have gone to class more because I see lots of opinion from you but very little in the realm of facts. You routinely ignore inconvenient facts and revert to the same refuted one-liners.
The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control U.N. scientists say
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
You are a scientific know nothing
Says the idiot
"I have also never said I know more than the scientists
To be fair I have also never said I do not"
that statement does not establish any acknowledgement about risks what so ever
What is wrong with you?
Look stupid, I know enough to be skeptical of morons making absolute claims
I have the training to make an impartial evaluation which is neutral
Where as you blindly accept the propaganda conclusion without an understanding of the science
A mind is a terrible thing to waste
Look stupid any estimate dating back hundreds of thousands of years has to be based upon a reference & there are limitations and errors involved in calculating such an estimate
And at the end of the day measuring past history is an estimate and always will be an estimate. If you understood even a miniscule amount of science you would know this
Carbon dating was the technique you mentioned , however limitations will apply to most other techniques
You stupid moron
They know how the decay works of a short period of time (hundreds of years), however they do not know how this works over hundreds of thousands or millions of years
As pointed out carbon dating is useful for 5,000 to 10,000 years , perhaps 20,000 if strict experimental procedures are followed
Look stupid, again it boils down to an estimate and attempting to date something over a couple hundred thousand years is going to be a shaky estimate
You are an ignorant fool
My mistake was thinking you might lean something
Because it may
1. Not be true
2. Not be meaningful
3. not be within our control stupid
The freezing & thawing cycle of the earth continues
Can you say with absolute ceratining that temps & co2 levels have never been higher over the 4.5 B year history of the planet?
No
Which makes you nothing more than a sheep bleating out the word "denier"
your absolute opinion & especially your criticism of alternative are completely invalid as you do not understand what you preach about
This post really sums you up well, larue.
In it you use insults, incorrect claims, shoddy scientific knowledge and faulty logic, all framed in incoherent grammar.
Nicely done.
It really paints the picture of an idiotic blowhard who really has no clue.
By the way, as a self declared free market backer, how do you feel that 18% of the US deficit from the year 2018 was from extreme weather events that were largely magnified by climate change?
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/411215-disasters-become-big-chunk-of-us-deficit
Not only are you incredibly out of touch with the science, but even your economic logic is fucked up.
Free markets can never correct for 'unpriced negative externalities' like the 6th great extinction or massive environmental fuckups.
I won't question you on your understanding of the science, as obviously you will never be able to understand how little you really understand.
But even your economic base has no answer to major societal risks.
I understand it perfectly. I understand you have no clue what you're talking about.
Like I said before, when you were still posting as groggy you claimed climate can only be taken over 40 to 50 years. Anything short of that is considered weather, and too small of a sample size.
But now that you're posting as Frankie you suddenly claim a 16-year long warming trend is a big enough sample size to be called climate change. You are completely contradicting yourself, and when you do that you lose all credibility
You accuse John LaRue of name-calling, and yet here you're doing the exact same thing.
Further loss of your credibility due to hypocrisy
Idiot, sorry dude, but you are still unable to follow this conversation.
This is not a '16 year sample', this is about around 140 years of records that show at least a 100 year long 'warming trend'.
Noting that the temperatures this century have been higher then ever before in human history is not limiting the argument to a 16 year window.
Take a look at this chart and tell me why you think there are are only 16 years of warming shown.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3686804/Fig.A2.0.png)
But now you're moving the goalposts to a 140-year record. You should have stated so earlier when you only posted a 16-year temperature increase.Idiot, sorry dude, but you are still unable to follow this conversation.
This is not a '16 year sample', this is about around 140 years of records that show at least a 100 year long 'warming trend'.
Noting that the temperatures this century have been higher then ever before in human history is not limiting the argument to a 16 year window.
Take a look at this chart and tell me why you think there are are only 16 years of warming shown.
Now Frankie, can you answer this. How much of that warming is due to manmade CO2's and how much is due to earth's natural warming/cooling cycle??
You do know that earth goes to cold/warm cycles, dont you??
The goalposts were never moved, you fool.
Here is the original post:
The problem is your reading comprehension is as solid as your comprehension of science.
This question has been answered multiple times.
For a clear chart that shows the warming and cooling forcings on the planet's climate, this bloomberg chart from 2015 answers your question very clearly.
Note that all the data for that chart comes from NASA.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Check that chart out and you tell us what you think is warming the world.
More namecalling. That tells me you're not very secure in your argument
And you check this chart out and tell me earth warming/cooling cycles havent always happened historically
Its taken 4 pages for you to understand one simple statement.
Calling you and idiot and fool for taking this long to understand that one statement is merited.
If you were to ever admit that you made a mistake and apologize for it then I would have no need to constantly berate you for a very stupid mistake on your end.
Frankie, you're full of it. You changed the goalposts from 16 years to 140 years.
Just admit you fucked up.
Also, are you gonna deny you used to post as groggy and that you always claimed climate should be taken over 40 to 50 years at least??
The chart was prepared by climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann. I would think they have a lot more credibility than Frankie from Terb
Phil, I changed nothing.
Here is the original post, with link to the post in this thread (highlights added)
Don't blame me that you weren't smart enough to understand that statement.
Nothing has changed in my claim since that statement.
Presenting a chart that has no vertical scale and then claiming that its credible really establishes your own credibility, Phil.
Do me a favour, tell me what temperature your chart says 2019 will come out as and tell me where 2017's temperature would be plotted on your chart.
Do you still think that chart is accurate?
I understand your statement perfectly. You are cherry-picking 16 years of weather data and trying to pass it off as evidence of climate change, when you clearly said (while you were still groggy) that climate samples can only be taken at minimum of 40 to 50 years.
Now, are you going to answer my question?? Do you admit your previous handle was groggy and that you made this statement, or do you deny??
It doesnt need a vertical scale. The temperatures are approximate. The purpose of the graph is to show that earth has gone through warming/cooling cycles before, without the influx of manmade CO2's
Talk about cherry picking. Frankfooter omitted the preceding sentence (emphasis added by me): "The panel, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last month, said the world would have to reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 to avert those problems and others."
Frankfooter's attitude shows why the alarmists are getting nowhere.
The IPCC predictions that it would be "too late" if the world didn't "reverse" global emissions stemmed from the same 2007 report that had the fairy-tale prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
Clearly, that report and the predictions made in 2007 were horribly flawed.
But Frankfooter won't hear of it. He insists on total fealty to the IPCC and to the wildly inaccurate belief that the IPCC is infallible.
Sorry, but that approach doesn't represent science. It's religious faith.
How the heck is it cherry picking to note that 16 of the 17 warmest years since 1880 occurred in this century?
That's using the full data set available.
Excuse me, but that's another idiotic statement showing you don't even understand the term 'cherry picking'.
Then that chart is useless, like all of your arguments here.
I note that you refuse to tell us what your own chart declares 2017 and 2019's temperatures will be.
Your chart is bullshit.
I believe I'll have to make another update to Frankfooter's greatest hits on man-made global warming.
Who wants to volunteer to point out to Frankfooter that 2016 came after 2012. :biggrin1:
Are you trying to now admit that climate change is real but that you think its too late to save the planet so we should just all buy SUV's and enjoy ourselves?
The world signed on to Kyoto, then the US fucked it up.
The world then signed on to the Paris agreement and now Trump is fucking that up.
Right now the world is on track for about a 3ºC increase, with incredibly large changes needed to keep it to 1.5ºC and still very, very large changes needed to keep it to 2ºC.
Can you tell me whether Pachauri, in your NYT article, was talking about holding the planet to a 1.5ºC increase in temp or a 2ºC increase in global temperature?
Why do you continue to support actions that will increase the temp to 3ºC or more?
Should I point out to you that the Paris agreement was an offshoot of Kyoto and Doha, or do you really think that agreement was all on its lonely?
Should I also point out that every time I challenge you on any single of your claims you always weasel off and avoid discussing them?
Stop evading my question, Frankie. Here it is again:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The guy who made that chart is a highly respected climatologist. But of course you know so much more then him, eh Frankie from Terb??
Just FTR Harris does believe in climate change, he just doesnt believe that its as bad as the fear-mongerers are saying, plus he also believes earth goes through natural warming/cooling cycles. Exactly the theory I prescribe to as well
http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm
You are the one trying to avoid answering my questions here, Phil.
Your conspiracy theories about other members won't be discussed here by me.
So tell me again, what temperature does this 'highly respected climatologist' think that 2017 and 2019 will report on his chart?
Are you still avoiding answering my questions?
