What Do We Think About Climate Change

You have identified a number of interesting factors and speculated on their effect on global warming. However, it is not enough. What needs to be done is to calculate just how large these effects are in comparison to other effects, such as the greenhouse effect.

As far as the causes of ice ages, I think the most generally accepted theory is that they are primarily the result of variations in solar radiation falling on the earth due to changes in the earth's orbit, and/or wobbles in the earth's axis of rotation.

 

first thing the Warmers need to do is lose Al Gore and

other like him.

Just because quack snake oil salesman is fleecing folks doesn't mean there might not be a epidemic or some other danger, but any real doctors can't get into bed with the quacks and be taken seriously.

Maybe Al Gore and his operation is a Double Agent to discredit legit Warmers.

 

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain
Opinion is not science.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance.
Hippocrates

 

If solar variations are the cause of cooling, it is only logical to realize they are also the cause of warming, but not because of wobbles or other such nonsense, but solar output of radiation.

 

Hoyt, you need to substitute "a cause" for "the cause", and then some of what you just said would contain a grain of truth.

There is no doubt that a change in solar output would cause warming or cooling. However, most scientists who study ice ages do not consider solar variations to have been a significant cause of ice ages. I am not sure how strong their evidence is on this because, aside form observations within historical times, I am not sure how the scientists would reconstruct the levels of solar output from the geological record.

As for wobbles, and such, I believe that geologists and climate scientists generally considered them to be a important factor but not the only factor in the development of ice ages. As to your off the cuff dismissal of these effects, basically you do not know what you are talking about.

 

As this thread so clearly demonstrates, you don't need to know what you are talking about to keep on talking. And don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about. You don't know what you're talking about when you say I don't know what I am talking about. You don't know what I know and you don't know what I don't know. So now you know you don't know. you know?

 

But Hoyt you don't know that I know that you don't know what you are talking about.

As to wobbles and stuff, let's see if you know anything about it. Even though you don't agree with theories that relate to these effects, in order to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about, how about giving us a short exposition of these effects. If you want you could also follow up with a discussion of why you think they are invalid.

 

I should add one clarifying note: when I said "solar variations" in a post I did just a short time ago I am referring to output from the sun. There are other kinds of variations of radiation energy on the earth that do not depend on the output from the sun, but that is not what I mean when I said "solar variations" in a recent post. In this part of the discussion I am talking about variations in solar output from the sun.

 

you are a lying sack of ****

show something to verify the lies you are attempting to spread

obviously your accusations are baseless or maybe you would enlighten the readers by quoting a few post with examples of these dastardly deeds of mine

yes I refused to show any verification of the tin shed because you refused to retract any statement you might have made that was likewise not accompanied by verification

the term hypocrite springs to mind

like this last pile of Sloweddy you are trying to pass off
no verifying data
no quoted posts
no substantiations of any kind
just more lies for all to see

baseless and without a single reference to back it up
unlike the posts from numerous people here trying to explain to those few deniers like yourself the science of climate

your not fooling anyone by making even more wild and baseless accusations

I notice your last nor your previous pile of lies included a single reference and Im sure the readers did as well

not only are you a liar but you are a poor liar at that

obviously anyone reading this crap can see you have consistently failed to provide a single data point to back up this crap you are tying to shovel

without being able to support these numerous baseless claims one must wonder why they should not be referred to as lies and by extension why you find the need to present a pile of lies in order to support your position

or is your position concerning Rapid Global Climate Shift untenable as is your personal attacks against those who disagree with you

your last only shows you are not only a poor liar but an incorporable hypocrite as well

unwilling to retract statements that are not accompanied by data to back them up but yourself unable to back up the lies you are trying to spread

I believe I mentioned the word pathetic in my last but that seems to hardly cover it



I say you are a liar
now prove me wrong with at least one reference for each of claims you are making

best of luck with that

love
B

 

Thank you Eddy for posting a view of what we are experiencing in Australia under the rule of a lunatic narcisit government that can only be compared to Peron and Evita in Argentina.

Even more astonishing than solar panels and solar hot water heaters, is the logic or lack of it in the home insulation program.

 

is there any scientific data in support of a competing theory to that of Rapid Global Climate Shift that the deniers would like to present
or is political spin really a substitute for detailed scientific studies

please people
lets step up the conversation from the obvious lies and political spin to something at least resembling a science based discussion of the theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift and its lack of competing theories

cheers
B

 

I have to side with fasteddy on this. AGW is full of brussels sprouts.

 

If we delete the political spin from the AGW perspective this thread would have less than half its current pages. Remove the lies and only our (denier) posts will be left.

 

ya but he wasn't talking about AGW
he was straight up lying about a number of other things
but it had virtually nothing to do with the subject at hand

 

LMAO

thanks for the laugh

while I agree fully half the posts would be eliminated if we canned all the political crap that some folks try and interject ( please see #7646 as a good example ) what remains must then be divided into scientifically sound concepts and theories and not scientifically sound theories.
I dont think to many folks ( ok there area few ) who are not aware of the overwhelming amount of data in support of RGCC are actually lying like Sloweddy in his last few slanderous posts, but I do think they are misinformed by a machine designed to do exactly that

only a few of the deniers would stoop so low as to attempt the blatant lies that have been prevalent in old Slowpokes last few

it is interesting that when he was unable to support his tripe about co2 not being a GHG he then resorted to lying like he has

must have struck a nerve on that one I guess cause his posts have really gone down the tubes of late, not that they were anything to write home about in the first place.

but really lets leave off the political jargon and stick to explaining the science

cheers
B