Global Climate Change Science News

[pErvinalia]

I know bullshit when I see it.

Keeping your best evidence secret?

That's a bit like the religions that keep the secrets for the chosen few.

You're one of the few allright.


The difference with me is that I don't CLAIM to know if MMGW is actually happening or not. I'd happily accept it if I ever come across good evidence. (which is where you let me down ).

I just give my opinion that the evidence so far is poor, and the certainty that you and others claim is just akin to religious faith.
And it makes me sad that no criticism or dissent is tolerated in the alarmist world. That's just unscientific.

Yet you believe that 98% of climate scientists are part of a vast conspiracy theory that a bunch of plucky billionaire fossil fuels industrialists have unearthed.

[pErvinalia]

Meanwhile, it's mid march, and the temperature is typical mid-march.

Give me two degrees of warming. Please.

You do understand that it's global warming, not MM's backyard warming, right?

[pErvinalia]

Climate and weather are not the same thing. FFS.

climate is warming up, it's been the hottest year ever in 2015, and I don't know how many times that record has been broken since 2003

The first two months of this year are hotter again with February smashing records. This year may beat last.13 of the hottest years on record have happened this millennium. It's warming 50 times faster than the period of warming after the last ice age and hasn't been this warm in thousands of years.

So yeah. It's getting hot and it's not natural occurrences.

No, no. No. The fossil fuel industrialists are right. It's all a giant conspiracy. Or the volcano's. Or supernovae. Something something.

[Tero]

I have a friend in Finland who thinks it's too cold there. He is burning wood at his cabin and greenhouse. I told him wood is useless for global warming, half the product is water. He's gotta use coal to cause warming.

[cronus]

Earth is being terraformed. The only explanation for what is happening. Ships are approaching. Human beings are being farmed as a interesting food resource to hunt and cook on their arrival. Look at Donald Trump and say otherwise?

[mistermack]

Hey rEv, since you're convinced, why don't YOU post what piece of evidence you find most compelling?

Because Ani's was shite. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Can you do any better?

Because my point is that the evidence is actually very weak, and believe me, I've looked.
But you MUST have something better, being so vocal and all.

[pErvinalia]

I just explained this to you above.

In any case Ani's evidence is good. Predictions match theory. Not sure what would convince you if that doesn't.

[Animavore]

Sorry, MM. You got the 3 pieces you asked for. I picked them out of the bag because they nicely fit in with each other. It was a good starting point.

[Tero]

Most common folk deniers won't bother to read any books or papers because it does not "feel" warmer.

I asked my Finnish denier if he could tell -22C from -20C just standing outside. He ignored it.

[mistermack]

Sorry, MM. You got the 3 pieces you asked for. I picked them out of the bag because they nicely fit in with each other. It was a good starting point.

If I got what I asked for, what you consider the best bits of evidence, you started with shite, and it's obviously downhill from there.

What I'm seeing is two people who are obsessively fixed on an idea, with nothing decent to back it up.

To be honest, the Pope makes a better argument for god, than you two do for MMGW.
It's actually very similar. CO2 is a greenhouse gas = someone or something must have made the universe. About the same standard of evidence.

Humans are pumping lots of CO2 = humans have a sense of right or wrong.
Both are correct, but neither mean anything in the cause and effect scene.

Look at this graph, doesn't it look like this one ? Pathetic.
About the same standard as "do you think we came from apes? "

The truth is that the whole house of cards came from some computer models, which are famously malleable to say anything you would like them to say.

Get ONE SINGLE agreed computer model, that forecasts the climate correctly, year after year, and I will sit up and take notice. But they can't do that.
What they can do, is forecast the climate correctly for ninety years time. Apparently.

[Animavore]

If I got what I asked for, what you consider the best bits of evidence, you started with shite, and it's obviously downhill from there.

I started from the beginning. Just like you.

I would start with how selection can be used to drastically change animals and plants.
As in humans breeding pigeons and doves. Etc etc etc.

That's the fundamental first step in the argument, for me.

Are you telling me that that was your best piece of evidence of evolution? That that was the beginning and the end and there wasn't more of a case to be built?

Don't be a hypocrite.

What I'm seeing is two people who are obsessively fixed on an idea, with nothing decent to back it up.

You're seeing what you want to see.

To be honest, the Pope makes a better argument for god, than you two do for MMGW.
It's actually very similar. CO2 is a greenhouse gas = someone or something must have made the universe. About the same standard of evidence.

No. It's not similar at all. It's very easy to prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can do it in your kitchen with stuff you find lying around your house.



Anyway, what happened to -

The first two are true and not disputed by anybody that I know of.

(the first being that CO2 is a greenhouse gas)

Did you change your mind?

Humans are pumping lots of CO2 = humans have a sense of right or wrong.
Both are correct, but neither mean anything in the cause and effect scene.

Oh you do agree that it is true. So how is saying CO2 is a greenhouse gas like saying someone started the universe? How is it the same standard of evidence?

"

The truth is that the whole house of cards came from some computer models, which are famously malleable to say anything you would like them to say.

Get ONE SINGLE agreed computer model, that forecasts the climate correctly, year after year, and I will sit up and take notice. But they can't do that.
What they can do, is forecast the climate correctly for ninety years time. Apparently.

Sure. Here's a bunch.

[mistermack]

(the first being that CO2 is a greenhouse gas)

Did you change your mind?

You like to point out where I said otherwise? Or are you experiencing delusions?
Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's also a massive pointless statement.
The question is whether the tiny amount of warming is natural, or due to the raising of CO2 from 0.028% to 0.04% in the atmosphere.

And since climate warms and cools all the time, of it's own accord, stating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is as relevant as saying, "well, it must have all come from somewhere".

Same standard of argument

[pErvinalia]

Sorry, MM. You got the 3 pieces you asked for. I picked them out of the bag because they nicely fit in with each other. It was a good starting point.

If I got what I asked for, what you consider the best bits of evidence, you started with shite, and it's obviously downhill from there.

What I'm seeing is two people who are obsessively fixed on an idea, with nothing decent to back it up.

As opposed to the guy who thinks that tens of thousands of scientist around the world are part of some gigantic conspiracy.

[Animavore]

(the first being that CO2 is a greenhouse gas)

Did you change your mind?

You like to point out where I said otherwise? Or are you experiencing delusions?

Yes. You implied it when you said:

To be honest, the Pope makes a better argument for god, than you two do for MMGW.
It's actually very similar. CO2 is a greenhouse gas = someone or something must have made the universe. About the same standard of evidence.

You basically are claiming here that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has the same standard of evidence as someone must have made the universe. ie. None.

[mistermack]

I see.
I write something, and you say I IMPLIED something.

Better watch what I write then.