Global Warming? are humans to blame?

I posted a true life experience of mine over on http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/op...-tales-seas-forum-members-40853-new-post.html
Actually I was tempted to post it here, but...This thread was started about 6 years ago, and not by Boston. However, Boston seems to have comandeered it as his personal propaganda blog. Okay, whose ever it "belongs" to, it's not mine, so I posted elsewhere. Boston, I would be curious as to your take on the story though.

 

well your certainly an excellent example of denial. If you had any science to back up what your trying to foist off on the readers I'm sure you'd be a little more willing to support your position with it, but as it is.

is about the best you've come up with.

Its pretty obvious your opinion is wildly inaccurate

CO2 is a greenhouse gas by virtue of the size and shape of the molecule

are you actually denying that simple fact, discovered well over a hundred years ago. For Pete's sakes man its provable by experimentation to be so, yet your about to declare to the world that its all a scam, simply because "you say so"

Thats nuts dude
but you claim that I'm the delusional one ?

 

I gotta wonder what you think when you say something like, it doesn't pay to be a climate denier, and I come back with article after article about how the oil and gas industry is offering millions of dollars to deniers, you seem to just ignore it, but somewhere in there there's got to be some part of you that realizes you were obviously wrong about that.

every wonder why there is article after article concerning the oil and gas industry handing off money right and left to people who right antiscience papers.

 

sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You say I don't provide evidence, yet I have posted quotes from imminent scientists decrying global warming, and you ignore them or accuse them of being paid shills of the establishment. You can't have it both ways. You can't pick "your" scientists as credible, and denounce the opposition scientists. You can't make your facts more weighty than differing facts. If you want respect you have to give respect. I did post evidence as compelling as yours. Whose fault is it, if you are blinkered and can't see it?

 

3% of scientists who study global warming disagree with the theory, 97% agree. I most certainly commented on your post. You must have missed it.

Many deniers who are also credentialed scientists have been shown to be on the take. And many more have had there names fraudulently used by the deniers camp.

from
http://news.discovery.com/history/god-wife-yahweh-asherah-110318.html

so please
shall we take a look at some of the scientists on your list and examine precisely what they say and think about climate change, where they get there funding from if its relevant and what field of study they are in.

It might come as a shock to you that the fraud in the denial camp is absolutely rampant but it will be another good point for the readers to realize

 

No, I don't want to encourage you to character assasinate dissenting scientists. You can do that all by yourself. It's just hot air. You can't make them uncredible just because you desperately want to. And you have only speculation and accusations they're on the take. Accusation isn't proof of guilt.
Let's look instead at raw data, which you earlier refused to do. You only want pre-digested and interpreted data, thats slanted your way.
Here is raw data.
Past earth warming periods as recorded encapsulated in antartic's ice record. This is the planet keeping records for us.


Look cyclic to you?


And since it's cyclic, it's not a impetus for us to mend our ways, which I admit should be improved on and mended, but not under the gun of global warming.

 

OK readers

check out this ****

look at the graph Yobar posts and see the huge spike on the right hand side, the one thats rather deceitfully hidden by the lines of the time delineations and by some strange coincidence just happen to be the same color as the polynomial fit of CO2, then tell me if you think that spike going up to 390 ppm ( if 390 were on the side bar ) exists anywhere else on that graph. Now I ask you, how could a single event be cyclical. And why if he had a valid point would he use a graph that hides the relevant data like that.

now lets look at Yobar's graph



Notice how the spike in CO2 is being hidden by the lines denoting time. Also notice how the side bar only goes up to 300ppm as if thats where the CO2 stops.

dude you just got caught deliberately misleading the readers. I think it only fair to give a chance to retract that graph and your statement concerning it.

or are you seriously going to try and tell us that the graph you have posted isn't hiding by its use of those time delineation lines the unique and unprecedented rise in CO2

foisting off the idea that present levels of CO2 are at ~300ppm is a blatant lie that it would appear you are trying to pass off to our readers. I believe we have a responsibility to at least speak truthfully on the forum.

 

here's your raw data on CO2

read it and weep

the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 392.4

any deviation from that fact is a blatant attempt to deceive our readers

 

yes co2 is up. Is temperature up to match it? Nope. I posted earlier thatscientist know co2 doesn't affect global warming, but they won't say it because other Bostons will jump down their throat. I'm paraphrasing. the quote was doesn't pay to say so.
yes co2 is a greenhouse gas.
No, it's not causing global warming.
weve been warming ever since last ice age, identically to other equaly spaced times. A natural cycle.
Scientists who jump to conclusion elevated co2 level is causal of elevated temperatures are doing bad science, and they know they are.

Naive innocent girl goes on a dinner date. Eats sushi for first time, drinks wine the first time, looses her virginity, and ends up pregnant.

Conclusion: sushi makes you pregnant.

Bad science.

coincidental is not causal, just happened at same time.
If you think there maybe causality, fine. Study it.
But it ain't ok to say hay everybody, stop making co2. you're causing global warming.

also notice previous periods spiked higher before falling. Currently, the spike seems blunted and prematurely plateuing. Maybe we are turning the corner for a down hill slide. Global cooling not warming.

 

Cute story
the banana logic isn't fooling anyone

Nor is that very deceitful graph you posted

Nor is the patently false claims that CO2 had spiked higher on that graph anywhere

Nor is claiming CO2 is a greenhouse gas but doesn't cause warming.

Nor is the fact that you accuse me of exactly what your doing, refusing to look at the raw data.

nor is the idea of you posting studies that ended up in court for plagiarism and fraudulent information, as well as defamation of character

Nor is ignoring basic physics, if CO2 is a greenhouse gas then increased concentrations of CO2 "must" result in warming.

Sorry but your efforts to deceive the readers with patently false information and then refusing to correct it is becoming very obvious

its equally as obvious you have no effective rebuttal to each and every one of your assertions being so wildly incorrect in post # 1551 to the point of being blatantly deceptive

speaking of which are you or are you not willing to correct that false depiction of our present levels of CO2 as proven by the raw data you seem to have ignored again

at which point I'd have to ask our readers if vigorously defending the truth constitutes some form of malicious attack. Which is something else I've been accused of. Apparently if one does not accept that 1+1=3 then one is being unreasonable around here.

 

Are you angry with me or the data? Can't stand information that refutes your mindset?
Best not to have a "set" mind. Leave a little room for mental adjustment.
I do not expect to convince you of anything.
If you suddenly flipflopped and cried "Eureka! I see the light!", I'd think you were just being sarcastic.
What I'd dearly love to see, is you being a bit, just a tiny bit, more tolerant of differing veiwpoints.
You are not the smartest person in the room. Nor am I.
I don't know all the folks here yet, but Pericles is a bright light.
Outshines me anyway.
It's inteligent and civilized, to be tolerant, respectful, and generously give credit where credit is due, even to an opposing point of veiw.

 

just the data

I'm never really all that angry at the person, just the idea that they could posibly believe in such drivel

 

maybe a little more of a detailed response

For instance, if more greenhouse gasses exists, the atmosphere must respond by warming. If less exist the atmosphere must respond by cooling. Assuming no other major deviation from the "normal" conditions exist. Deal is no one has been able to identify any other source for the present levels of warming. Except for when you calculate for the added CO2 since the industrial age. Then it works out perfectly. Howd that happen eh. Might want to consider that one a bit longer.

How about this, I'll work on being a little less gruff ( which I can't deny I am ) and maybe you work on some of these basics. The simple reality is you've admitted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas now it might just be time to admit its getting warmer these last few years as well.

the data is overwhelming, even to the Kotch brothers funded Berkley study group

which by the way made it 4 for 4 major study groups that all found significant warming beyond the statistical probability

 

but your graph really was entirely deceitful and really should if your going to retain even the slightest glimmer of credibility be removed. Otherwise it would appear that you are deliberately trying to deceive the readers rather than just made an honest error in using a graph someone else fraudulently doctored.

 

The 2 graphs you displayed. They're the same graph, just separated the blue and red lines, right?