Global Climate Change Science News

[mistermack]

This is an example of how people gobble up this garbage without the slightest attempt at critical thought.

If you look at the CO2 graphs plotted against temperature, from the Antarctic ice cores, you will see that the CO2 levels always rise, about eight hundred years after significant temperature rises. Each spike has a matching spike. This is because the oceans can't hold as much CO2 when they warm.

So if you had a five degree rise in temperature, fifty million years ago, you would AUTOMATICALLY get a matching spike in CO2 levels.

This study is working on the ASSUMPTION that the CO2 rise caused the temperature rise. When more accurate data from the last half million years points to the reverse.

[Animavore]

This is an example of how people gobble up this garbage without the slightest attempt at critical thought.

If you look at the CO2 graphs plotted against temperature, from the Antarctic ice cores, you will see that the CO2 levels always rise, about eight hundred years after significant temperature rises. Each spike has a matching spike. This is because the oceans can't hold as much CO2 when they warm.

So if you had a five degree rise in temperature, fifty million years ago, you would AUTOMATICALLY get a matching spike in CO2 levels.

This study is working on the ASSUMPTION that the CO2 rise caused the temperature rise. When more accurate data from the last half million years points to the reverse.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllssssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... rature.htm

This is an example of how people gobble up this garbage without the slightest attempt at critical thought.

Fucking irony.

[Animavore]

Funny how a denialist accuses anyone of being spoonfed when we know for a fact that denialists have been lied to for decades. We even know exactly who lied to them and why.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php

Denialists literally have no leg to stand on in this debate any more (not that they ever did). Suckers for the Heartland institute are logically similar to those for The Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and the Flat Earth Society.

[pErvinalia]

The fossil fuels industry would never lie to us. They have our best interests at heart..

[Animavore]

The fossil fuels industry would never lie to us. They have our best interests at heart..

I guess. I mean, they do have many of the same, honest-to-goodness, spin-doctors the tobacco industry used. Seriously! In some cases the exact same people!
No mention if any of those people also worked on lead.

[pErvinalia]

This is an outrageous slur on committed altruists. I'd believe them over the global Marxist illuminati scientist conspiracy any day. Hey, MM?

[mistermack]

I like it. I like how the "scientific" question becomes a war.

Did I criticise your religion? Or disrespect it? Aaaaaaaw, of course you have a right to get upset.
And ignore any flaw in the doctrine.

Me, I keep an open mind. I'm wide open to good evidence. But I'm not seeing it.
That study was so obviously flawed, and yet allowed to float without criticism, that it tells me I have to be EXTRA critical when I see stuff that "climate science" produces.

Because, at the end of the day, they're not scientific, they are campaigners.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, peer review is "campaigning"...

[mistermack]

Yes, peer review is "campaigning"...

It certainly is, when all the peers are campaigners too.

But you, lets hear YOUR convincing argument for MMGW.
What single piece of EVIDENCE do you find most compelling? You've been at it long enough, so it should be a good one.

[Animavore]

I like it. I like how the "scientific" question becomes a war.

Did I criticise your religion? Or disrespect it? Aaaaaaaw, of course you have a right to get upset.
And ignore any flaw in the doctrine.

Me, I keep an open mind. I'm wide open to good evidence. But I'm not seeing it.
That study was so obviously flawed, and yet allowed to float without criticism, that it tells me I have to be EXTRA critical when I see stuff that "climate science" produces.

Because, at the end of the day, they're not scientific, they are campaigners.

No upsetting here. Just pointing out facts which you can't seem to accept. That makes you closed-minded. Not open.

You've been lied to. And look - I understand; you've invested so much into denialism, sitting around waiting for vindication, like Christians waiting for Jesus, while the Eartg has only gotten hotter, that you believe coming out now and admitting you were absolutely, fundamentally, and completely wrong will make you look like a gullible idiot, (I've seen tbe same effect on people duped out of cash believing they can be trained to be psychic, once theyve invested theyve no choice but to follow through) but honestly; I'd have more respect for you if you did.

[Animavore]

Yes, peer review is "campaigning"...

It certainly is, when all the peers are campaigners too.

But you, lets hear YOUR convincing argument for MMGW.
What single piece of EVIDENCE do you find most compelling? You've been at it long enough, so it should be a good one.

Yes. a massive conspiracy spanning multiple scientific disciplines and literally every scientific academy on the planet. Sounds far more plausible than the side with the small cadre of scientists funded by the fossil fuel industry who were caught lying have simply being lying.

[Animavore]

Yes, peer review is "campaigning"...

It certainly is, when all the peers are campaigners too.

But you, lets hear YOUR convincing argument for MMGW.
What single piece of EVIDENCE do you find most compelling? You've been at it long enough, so it should be a good one.

Tell you what. You show me any scientific theory which is accepted based on a single piece of evidence, and then tell me what that single piece is. And when you've figured out what's wrong with that question do, please, come back and explain it.

[mistermack]

Ha ha !

I didn't say that any single piece of evidence would prove your case.
I just challenged you to state the best piece that you know. It shouldn't be hard, in view of the effort that YOU'VE put into it over the years.

[Animavore]

Ha ha !

I didn't say that any single piece of evidence would prove your case.
I just challenged you to state the best piece that you know. It shouldn't be hard, in view of the effort that YOU'VE put into it over the years.

Your question makes no sense. I accept MMGW based on the whole. Not a single piece.

Read and understand. https://www.skepticalscience.com/empiri ... arming.htm

Or don't. I don't care.

[mistermack]

If you knew what the fuck you were talking about, you could easily have answered.

That's how it works, when you know your facts. Posting a link is a cowards way out of everything. It illustrates to me that your faith is blind, not informed.