What Do We Think About Climate Change

It amazes me that you know all this and yet persist in promoting AGW tripe.

 

From an earlier post by Troy.....................



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just pick some narrow little bit of facts that trend in a direction you like, make a graph from them, and mindlessly extrapolate it until it covers whatever you want to believe. Saves all that pesky thinking and research.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Exactly what Mann did!

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just pick some narrow little bit of facts that trend in a direction you like, make a graph from them, and mindlessly extrapolate it until it covers whatever you want to believe. Saves all that pesky thinking and research.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was some offal tripe, huh?

 

Hansen has no shame at all..............

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/03/is-2010-heading-for-a-record/#more-20154

 

and so you thus both admit and condone cherry picking the data just as you have been accused of over and over

just sayin

 

It wasn't subtle irony.

 

there is climate and there is weather
one is local using specific measurements attributed to that area
one is global which is derived from the averages of all weather

I know how easily confused you get on these important details but you might want to read up on the difference and then maybe you will understand why the "global" trends are so important and why the local trends are relatively unimportant, although when an entire regions weather is off it is of some note.

cheers
B

 

another baseless accusation

show a single example and the data to back up your BS

I say you are a liar and coward making baseless accusations while hiding safely behind a computer

 

No human being will ever know the Truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even known they had done so.
Xenophanes

 

ya but old Xenophanes didn't hide behind his keyboard making unsubstantiated accusations ( typically referred to as blatant lies )

my bet is the coward Sloweddy will not even remotely provide a detailed review of even one of his latest accusations

he just kinda reminds me the fools who get thrown out of the club from time to time
all yes sir and no sir when your nose to nose
but all kinds of brave once they are a few hundred feet down the road

pathetic if you ask me

anyway interesting quote
has nothing to do with my challenge to Sloweddy to substantiate his BS
but interesting quote none the less

cheers
B

 

If you'll notice, I've never particularly promoted AGW, tripe or otherwise. Instead, I've pretty much stuck to objecting to shabby science and reasoning by those who oppose it.

I honestly don't think I'm qualified to decide on my own whether AGW is real or not. But I am qualified to flag BS when I smell it. And most of the opposition I've seen in this thread is pretty sad. Instead of being rooted in science, it's routed in conspiracy theories: a belief that liberals in general, plus politicians, the media and scientists all over the world, are all in on some sort of massive conspiracy. They're deliberately promoting a scientific theory they know to be false, for their own nefarious purposes.

That's paranoid, irrational and highly unlikely.

 

Troy, you quote Wikipedia and Saint Agustin... oh my...
You say "Church doctrine"...well...you probably refer to Catholic Church doctrine. Considering the Catholic church has made up and changed it's doctrine as many times as it suited them to ecumenise with the locals I wouldn't think they have any authority left at all.

Lets see what the actual scriptures say:

Read more here
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Flat, unmovable earth, and a geocentrical universe was derived from scriptures and was the logical think to believe in ancient times. The edge of the world, the far corners of the world, and the description of the sun going up in the est and down in the west all support that view. The Church, a political power based on an alleged authority given to them by God, based it's credibility on Bible innerance and therefore had to cling to literal intepretations including flat and geocentricla earth.

when Copernico became famous for challenging geocentrism , such concept was ventured earlier but never published. Galileo's house arrest for supporting Copernico is most famous.

PS

What is most curious however is that no consideration is given to the fact that the authors of the Bible, be it inspired or not from God, had no choice but to write what was plausible in their time. A description of a spherical earth and a cosmos as it is, would be far fetched and detract from the scripture's credibility for several centuries. It is in that light that the scriptures must be seen. There is a lot to be said about the advise given even in the new testament that suited only the locals of the time ... "The women will be silent in church" would not go very far this days for example. The philosophical and intellectual gymnastics done by preachers to explain away the multitude of errors and inconsistencies, inaccuracies and mistaken concepts in scritpures is interesting but sad to watch.
No one has the courage to say "I DO NOT KNOW"
Probably the hardest sentence to be uttered by any religious leader.

 

You got it in one Troy. That was precisely the purpose of my sarcastic allegation. I am sure you don't think I actually believe that to be true. I say that it would be possible to pick convenient data, ignore their statistical significance and allege a cause alien to all and that happens to run parallel for unrelated reasons and call upon it for causality.

There are lots of stories in ancient history of nations who would attribute climatic events to foreigners, pigs, the wrath of some assorted gods, the sins of the opposing party or any other reason that suited the person in power. The "man made" Global Warming is no different.

 

Boston, your acumen is smashing, your logic insormountable. you caught us with the pants down, nothing will bring us back from such exposure.
You win

 

there is a big difference between the philosophy of ones "way" and a scientifically sound theory

the simple reality is that science is not opinion
its a preponderance of data
in this case one that overwhelmingly supports the theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift