Global Climate Change Science News

[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.

Actually, I just realised: you did ask which single piece would prove my case.

You said:

But you, lets hear YOUR convincing argument for MMGW.

Followed by:

What single piece of EVIDENCE do you find most compelling? You've been at it long enough, so it should be a good one.

In other words you expected a convincing argument for MMGW (first line) based on a single piece of convincing evidence (second line).


Your question was in err. You should've said:

But you, lets hear YOUR convincing argument for MMGW.
What single piece of EVIDENCE do you find most compelling? Explain the the multiple lines of evidence in a compelling way to make your case.

[Animavore]

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.

You're being dishonest in your questioning as I have just illustrated above. I can easily explain to you the evidence for global warming in a way that fits together, but you're asking me for that single transitional fossil which proves it all.

Dishonesty is all I expect from denialists at this stage. I'm not phased by it.

[mistermack]

So there's no piece of evidence that you consider strong enough to put up as an example?

None of it even warrants a mention, till you pile a load of horse shit on top of it?

I don't know of any other accepted theory that that would apply to.

Ask me about evolution, through natural selection, and I can put up one, two, ten, however many bits of evidence you ask for. I just invited you to post one. One that you consider the best or strongest.

Ok, make it three, if you really can't choose.

[Animavore]

Ask me about evolution, through natural selection, and I can put up one, two, ten, however many bits of evidence you ask for. I just invited you to post one. One that you consider the best or strongest.

Go on then. Name one.

[mistermack]

Ask me about evolution, through natural selection, and I can put up one, two, ten, however many bits of evidence you ask for. I just invited you to post one. One that you consider the best or strongest.

Go on then. Name one.

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.

[Animavore]

Ask me about evolution, through natural selection, and I can put up one, two, ten, however many bits of evidence you ask for. I just invited you to post one. One that you consider the best or strongest.

Go on then. Name one.

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.

But that's just microevolution. The pigeons and doves are still pigeons and doves. They don't magically turn into goats.

What do you mean "first step"? Are you saying that you're going to have to provide more, interconnected, evidence with which to make your case?

[mistermack]

The point is that you're such a fucking chicken, that you can't give a good example of evidence for MMGW, and would rather change the subject.

Why don't you just admit, that you believe, because somebody told you it was so?
Try using your own brain.

[Animavore]

The point is that you're such a fucking chicken, that you can't give a good example of evidence for MMGW, and would rather change the subject.

Why don't you just admit, that you believe, because somebody told you it was so?
Try using your own brain.

I can easily give example. I even have one prepared (using the 3 pieces you've graciously allowed me). I'm trying to make you understand what's wrong with your method of inquiry first. You seem to think I can give you a case based on one piece which may prove something, may prove nothing, like the piece you've given on evolution. I can't do that. 3 is a little more acceptable.

[Animavore]

Ok, make it three, if you really can't choose.

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas (see John Tyndall).

2) Humans are pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, way more than is caused naturally. see here

3) The Earth is getting warmer inline predominantly with the trend of CO2 being pumped, even when other factors are taken into account (see graph below).

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015- ... the-world/

QED

[Animavore]

The more astute may have noticed MM provided , not a single piece of evidence, but a whole body of evidence. I was being lenient in allowing it.

[mistermack]

I asked you for one, that you considered the best. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is that it?

The first two are true and not disputed by anybody that I know of.
They are not strong evidence for MMGW though. Even after all the years of fossil fuel use, CO2 is 0.04% of dry air.

As to your number 3, you merely point to things which coincide. Since temperatures go up and down all the time, and rarely stay flat, it's no surprise that it's risen. It was a choice of two. Not a HUGE coincidence, by any measure.

Temperatures took a dip in the sixties, and they were all warning of a coming ice age.
Same reasoning.

[Animavore]

Even after all the years of fossil fuel use, CO2 is 0.04% of dry air.

CO2 is 40% now than it was pre-industrial times. That's a significant increase.

As to your number 3, you merely point to things which coincide. Since temperatures go up and down all the time, and rarely stay flat, it's no surprise that it's risen. It was a choice of two. Not a HUGE coincidence, by any measure.

It is expected that if CO2 goes up temperature happens. That is a prediction of global warming. One which the correlation confirms.

Temperatures took a dip in the sixties, and they were all warning of a coming ice age.

Who are "they all"?

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

Is that all you've got? Already long debunked nonsense from the Heartland institute? The very group I've pointed out have been lying to you?

Come back with some valid evidence which debunks global warming from a reputable group and then maybe I'll listen to you.

[mistermack]

Well, I've heard your best evidence, and it's evidence of nothing. I would need a hell of a lot better than that to panic and waste billions.
I was there in the sixties and early seventies, and it was the media reporting claims from the climate scientists of the time worrying about an ice age. That was before the current hysteria.
And they had a point. Because we are due a major glaciation event, so it wasn't just extrapolated from computer models. It had happened many times in the past. In the real world.

[Animavore]

Well, I've heard your best evidence, and it's evidence of nothing.

Lol. Only if you deny it. Hence the term, "denialist".

I would need a hell of a lot better than that to panic and waste billions.

Who's panicking? Who's wasting money?

I was there in the sixties and early seventies, and it was the media reporting claims from the climate scientists of the time worrying about an ice age.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttttttt!

That was before the current hysteria.

Which hysteria?

And they had a point. Because we are due a major glaciation event, so it wasn't just extrapolated from computer models. It had happened many times in the past. In the real world.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllllllllssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttttttttttt!

https://www.skepticalscience.com/headin ... ce-age.htm

[mistermack]

Too late mate.
You've posted your best shot, and it was shite.
Temperatures going up a bit, and CO2 going up a bit. Highly conclusive.

Or actually no. I can't help but notice, that temperatures have gone up, roughly in line with my weight.

Jeez, it was me all the time.