LOL. Apparently, the complete absence of any evidence isn't an issue. :thumb:
Perhaps you should tell us what you think caused the increase in temperatures in the period from 1920 to 1940.
25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Perhaps you should tell us what you think caused the increase in temperatures in the period from 1920 to 1940.
It's ironic that climate-change deniers are of the non-conspiracy theorist crowd, except when it suits their cause.
(Nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist, as long as a conspiracy is at least, a plausible alternative).
The problem is basketcase thinks everyone who prefers reality over fantasy is a "conspiracy theorist."
Indeed, he accused me of not liking the results of the AMS survey, even though I was the one that cited the survey and I'm quite happy to cite the results that have helped confirm that the "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
And for the 1st 35 years of your industrial revolution,...the temp actually went down,...so what's your point,...???
FAST
Indeed. In that entire 150-year timeframe, there is only a stretch of 20 years where there is a correlation between man-made CO2 emissions and increasing temperatures.
For many of those 150 years, the observed results contradict the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
Your claim is a fairy tale.
Its not supported by the author of the paper, its only supported by James Taylor of Heartland, which is a totally corrupt source of information.
The fact that you support the findings of Heartland really show you can't judge whether a source is legit.
You should be ashamed.
You are incredibly wrong.
Anthropogenic climate change's effects have been tracked for the last 150 years and the changes we have been watching have been as predicted by the IPCC.
With 14 of the 15 years this century being reported as the hottest years on record, and 2014 the hottest year ever, only a total fool thinks this means there is no climate change or that its not still increasing.
You cannot defy those facts.
These experts would be an absolute disaster if they were responsible for investing,...I mean wow,...14 years out of 150 might have a correlation,...including the fact that the very small % of the total sample years in question, are at the extreme end of this really small sample,...and bingo we have a winner.
Getting down to the issue here,...nobody is saying that the climate might be changing,...IT ALWAYS IS,...but to base their grand proclamations on such an insignificant number of years in the history of earth,...is just plain arrogance.
You could go back and pic any number of 150 year periods,...and make a correlation to some cause,...but because the because the sample of 150 years is so tiny,...it just becomes a guess,...as is what the experts are doing now.
Come back in another hundred years,...then maybe we can talk,...but of coarse the unemployables won't be around then,...so they give a shit.
FAST
Who is talking about 14 of 150 years?
There is clear correlation for the past 150 years.
Add massive amounts of CO2 and the climate changes, its pretty basic.
2014 was the warmest year on record.
2015 will probably be warmer.
Why? Because the climate is behaving as predicted.
Just like NASA, the author of the paper had no problem seeing the entire membership as experts on the subject.
He changed his mind after he saw the results of the survey and came up with this bizarro argument that climatology is such a highly specialized area that only a few scientists are able to understand it.
If he had truly believed that, he wouldn't have done the survey.
And Santa Claus is a real person. :biggrin1:
Here's a link to the IPCC's third assessment report from 2001: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/
Show me where the IPCC predicted at least 15 years of "flattening" temperatures.
You believe the Heartland institute over the author of the study?
That's the question.
Do you believe James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, who made your claims, or do you believe the author of the study?
Answer.
Hmm. I notice you once again evaded the question about the IPCC's AR3 report and your false assertion that the IPCC predicted current temperature trends.
You also evaded my point about the AMS survey.
Here is the question: If the alarmist who conducted the survey thinks more than 85 per cent of the AMS membership knows nothing about man-made global warming, why did he ask them to complete a poll on the topic?
And what was he going to do with the results if it had gone the way he wanted?
And I can respect that. The problem is that the "solutions" offered in response to that theory don't work, even if you assume the theory is true. If AGW is the prime mover in climate change, the energy efficiency approach is not the way to go. The alternative fuels method is not the way to go. Even putting the two together doesn't work. Energy efficiency simply encourages people to use use the same amount of or more energy to be more comfortable than before. Alternative energy sources are not giving us the kind of efficiency we need to replace fossil fuels. Both together are barely more than feel good window dressing.
Assuming the science is right, the solution(s) are still bullshit. They reek of command economy theories rather than realistic market economic theories. Even the carbon credit economy, as an attempt to use market forces to solve the putative problem, was a typically terrible command economy attempt to ape a market economy.
You're thinking 2 steps ahead, that is too fast for the alarmists like frankfooter. The science is far from solved as far as I'm concerned. And even if it was we can't do anything about it without collapsing the world economy.
Ha ha, what's YOUR point?
It would take a number of years to build up CO2 levels before there's a warming trend, so that observation of yours can still be consistent with AGW in the post-industrial revolution age.
Bottom line, and not to side with the climate change deniers, your statement is a practical fact, ESPECIALLY when there's no consensus with foreign nations that have no regulations whatsoever in regard to carbon emissions.
Huh? A majority of independent scientists conspiring to promote AGW seems like a fantasy to me.
Throw a dart,...ya ,...thats it,...
I was replying to some one else's post,...which you missed or ignored the point.
FAST
MY POINT IS,...Because some here state the so called warming trend, started with the industrial revolution,...but I guess the experts here are allowed to pick what point that the coincides,...is that your point,...???
I was replying to some one else's post,...which you missed or ignored the point.
FAST
