Global Warming? are humans to blame?

So you're saying that actual temperature and sea level increases have been less than predicted.

Assuming we accept that claim at face value (which is iffy), what does it prove? seems to me it's kind of like arguing, 'I was only doing 85 mph, officer -- not 95." Win or lose, you're still getting a speeding ticket.

We might get farther in this discussion if we stopped trying to denigrate our opponents as liberals or conservatives, as though political beliefs have something to do with scientific truth. Just a thought....

 

Your parents should take you keyboard away. In debate class, your tactics would result in you flunking the class Poor.

 

man you got that right, The deniers are alive and well and filling this thread with pure tripe as often as possible.

Our silent readers and thats about 9 out of 10 people who visit this thread I'm sure can see right through some of the more obvious garbage being trotted out around these parts.

one of my faves is this whole mission to convince people that the world is actually cooling AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, gotta love that one

anyway enjoy it folks but be very wary as to what you believe off this thread. Its burried in misinformation and non science/non sense. Look for the graphs and the published articles as references, avoid the op ed pieces. And have fun with it

 

andiamo
Did you TAKE debate class? I did. And was on the debate team. When the debate is about truth, and you catch your opponent in a lie, it's MOST appropriate to point it out.

In fact, some of the most INTERESTING and famous debates, they called each other much WORSE than liar.


,
"Egad sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox." "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." (John Wilkes to the Earl of Sandwich


Read more: http://www.rateitall.com/i-42795-

 

Not only less than predicted, but MUCH less than the worst scenarios, that Boston blurted out, without a single url to back it up.

 

oh and since the deniers have touched on ocean level rise, lets address the issue a bit.

For one the issue of how much the oceans will rise is one of the side issues that has little agreement within the literature, its a very complex issue and just about every paper I've read on it comes up with something within a rather wide degree of latitude. So arguing one of the less well understood "results" of climate shift as a tactic to deny climate shift is walking on some pretty shaky ground.

Its kinda like when one of the deniers came in and said that the warming is due to ice melt. Ya gotta just love some of the stuff you read around these parts

The nuts and bolts of the theory are extremely well understood and are rooted in science that goes back to the dawn of science. Sure some of the peripheral studies have yet to achieve the level of consensus that the main theory has but thats just a mater of time and research. Simply because somethings reaction is less well understood than the causal factors doesn't do much to refute those causal factors

cheers
B

 

Boston
I wasn't talking about how climate science is inmature and doesn't predict well. True though.

I was talking about YOUR claim that the global warming reality had surpassed the WORST SCENARIOS in the predictions.

Untrue. Error. False. Equivocal. Prevarication. A canard. A Lie.

 

Hello Boston, and all others,
This thread never seems to be able to come to an agreed conclusion...

Warming is measured in the oceans and my own casual observations are happy with acknowledging that oceans are warming... What happens at the surface impacts directly on global climate so get used to it...

Warmer oceans mean greater cloud development and precipitation... Land masses cool quicker than water so cooler air from cooler land Means colder land areas as the increased cloud presence keeps the sun from warming the land - so people in the middle of landmasses where breezes pass over warm waters and thence over cooler land will witness greater rain deposits and colder winters... Also mid continent climate has a tendency to get colder than coastal regions with a regular prevailing sea breeze...

So the warmer the oceans, delivering your cooler land weather, the greater global warming is impacting on you and making where you live colder...

The rising sea (oceanic) level can be calculated by measuring the amount of ice in the Antarctic (NOT FLOATING) and that in the Arctic circle region (ALSO NOT FLOATING) and working out the volume above seal level, then calculating how much that volume would make the oceans rise..... QUITE A surprisingly LARGE HEIGHT.... The calculations are relatively simple and easy to do at most universities with a reasonable surface mapping capability and access to a radar pass by satellite to determine heights above sea level... It has been done and I cannot remember the height...

But anyway this thread may become redundant if the situation in Europe worsens and some banks there start to collapse then calls on insurance (CDO's?) and other evil devices will shed their load and all panic will break loose as positions are rapidly unwound or exited.... Will it all start in Europe, Japan, China, or USA? - - Who knows, may be almost simultaneous as no one wants to be last person holding the parcel... I am betting that it will happen VERY QUICKLY (faster than a speeding bullet) bigger than most cities combined.... Some call it the silent implosion of thousands to nuclear weapons NOT exploding...

God or any other deity will not need to intervene to save the earth... Humanity will behave lemming-like with a fiscal implosion of their own greed and arrogance...

Are you prepared? seems PAR is http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/al...ared-natural-disaster-42924-3.html#post551424

 

The vast majority of the silent readers (and of all registered voters, from both parties) fall into a category where they expect action on climate change from the government.

This includes 52% of registered republican voters, an overwhelming majority of democrats and independents.

 

That says volumes about the state of our educational institutions and the loss of ability to independently reason.
The average IQ is 100. What do you expect?

Consensus never proved a hypothesis.

 

I am sure Nazi Germany also had majority support from citizenry.
Majority never means being right and usually means leaning towards being wrong

 

OK, now we've had the obligatory reference to Hitler and the Nazis, without which no internet thread is complete.

Can we get on with the discussion now?

 

You are doubling down on your excesses. I presume that's a conscious tactic on your part.

Boston has not made claims without many references, over the last 3,000 posts or so, to back them up.

To say that he is deliberately lying, after presenting his case as well as he has and with back-up documentation, may be an error (not on his part, but the science). It may be false even, to those who believe in the massive global conspiracy of scientists.

But to call Boston a liar is beyond the pale and uncivilized.

 

So, when Boston makes WILD EXTRAVAGANT UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS like this one "back to the dawn of science", I'm suppose to say "tch tch, Boston, pants on fire , climatology and cryology, and glaciology are relatively new and recent sciences. Certainly you aren't proposing science only dawned, only really began when THOSE inmature branches did?

Boston preaches ALARM and a need for abrupt drastic change in society. No time to think about it. Just DO it!

He's in the first 12% group of alarmists, among the 6 groups of Cat's posted public radio interview.

I'm in the 6th group, the 10% that think its part of a conspiracy to force a one world global government.

So if BOSTON fibs, exaggerates, tells a whopper, I'm going to NEON it! So nobody thinks "Wow! Worse than the WORST scenarios! We don't have TIME to reason or study. We better let the alarmists have their way!"
Nope. Gonna hold up a neon sign finger pointing at Boston, Liar.

 

Boston is simply correct - climate science is a peer-reviewed multi-disciplinary science - and like all in the scientific method, can trace directly back to the "dawn of science". From Wikipedia: "Tracing the exact origins of modern science is possible through the many important texts which have survived from the classical world." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science. To make that statement cannot be called a "lie" by any stretch of the imagination, unless you are of the frame of mind where you simply don't believe in science at all.

His over-use of emoticons may be annoying to some and he may have made some unsupported claims in the last 3000+ comments in this forum that I missed, but since I've been watching it appears pretty clear to me that in the vast majority of cases he has supported his reports very well with direct links to authorities on the subject, and anyone who cares to spend the time will find this to be true.

In fact, for you to state "Boston makes WILD EXTRAVAGANT UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS", that can only fall into one of three categories: either 1. You have not read his supporting references, 2. You have forgotten, or 3. You are lying yourself.

I have no evidence to claim which of these three is correct, rather I leave it to others to form their own conclusions.