Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

My data, is from most all of the sources your links draw from. Mod Edit ~ Don't make it personal. You can't prove CO2 causes temperatures to increase. Can't hasn't been done yet. you can show all of the graphs you want with correlating lines across it, but you haven't proven anything in any of those graphs that anything caused another. Sorry

 

There is currently a UK-US workshop going on discussing the limits of climate models for adaptation decision making.

One of the speakers:

‘It’s OK to say that we know we don’t know.’ Smith argued that climate models were not up to the standards in relation to other computational fluid dynamics groups in terms of validation, verification, uncertainty quantification, and transparency, stating ‘Trust can trump uncertainty.’ ~ Leonard Smith - London School of Economics

 

The argument written out would look like:
a = humans increase CO2 in the atmosphere
b = global temperatures will rise

a implies b
a
therefore b

The argument above is a modus ponen.

This is very different from the form:
a
b
a implies b
The above is a therefore because of this fallacy.

On the topic of CO2, if you want to believe physics is just a bunch of nonsense, go ahead.

 

The difference is that NOAA et al do not cherry pick data

 

Truth be told, I have no idea whether global warming is a thing. It appears the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it is real. But here's the thing... it has no bearing on what I support politically.

All I know is that if people are genuinely convinced that global warming is real, they will ideally enact environmental policies that should be enacted anyways. If humanity needs a boogeyman to clean up after itself, so be it. If we must be told of imminent apocalypse to stop destroying natural habitats, killing the Amazon or hunting species into extinction, then by all means, let the scare tactics begin.

 

Well just goes to prove that you should not listen to denialists - you should check out facts for yourself - Oh! and I am reporting EVERY time you quote something without attribution - especially something that has obviously been cherry picked

 

I am OK with that - but hang around and put your feet up some of the explanations get very technical but there is a lot to be learnt in this field and watching some of the players here debate is very educational!

 

and just what do you think makes it possible for life to exist on this planet?...duh, it's the greenhouse effect which has been understood for 180 years, but apparently a new revelation for you...and yeah co2 is a ghg, surprise! Which was confirmed 155yrs ago...increase a ghg and it will result in higher temps, it can do nothing else...

Once again a denier tripped up by basic science...

 

Oh, I do check the facts for myself instead of relying on a cartoonists communication project.

 

well - since I found reference to the PDO in the IPCC report then - something had to have been missed

 

Let's say we accept that all those weather scientists are indeed lieing , why they do it ?
Let's say that i am a meteorologist in the university of Lisbon , what do i get for pointing that CO2 emissions are bad and human activity is destroying the planet?

 

More research money.

I don't agree with this. But that is the answer you're going to get.

 

You get much more "research" money as an EXXON's lapdog

 

Better yet the poor sod freezing his assets off down in Antarctica counting snowflakes - what does HE get out of it - compared, say to the CEO of an oil company??

- - - Updated - - -

Mate there is not enough research money in the world to have me banged up with all those men for a six month long night in antarctica………………on second thought……………

 

Speaking of money, the majority of it comes from government and they don't do very well when it comes to beyond 3 days of predicting anything.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...s-dot-government-never-saw-this-winter-coming

 

Climate is what we expect weather is what we get

Climate is trends

Weather is individual instances

 

LOL, you evidently missed that it is the Climate Center that is using the predictions from the global warming fad to predict regional warming trends. Like I said, there was a recent US-UK workshop on this very thing.

 

It's just the same old same old. There is no evidence in the world to make these folks here move off of their platform. There is a counter move for any fact brought up. Oh that is this, or that's cherry picking or they did predict that. It's laughable.

 

Physics physics. Let's see the experiment, you know the one everyone agreed with that shows CO2 causes temperature increases? again, you currently have two items that both go up there is no causal significance proven. Like I said, there appears to be some data that suggests that a change in temperature will cause the oceans to release CO2 which would mean that CO2 increases with a change in weather.

And yes, humans cause some CO2 in the atmosphere. Nice you know that. First prove that a rise in atmoshperic CO2 causes an increase in temperature. It is what the deniers as you call us want. Show us, prove it! That is the entire point of the argument.

 

I've never met a researcher/scientist that required funding for a salary, they're generally not self employeed but hold salaried positions...recently a medical researcher where I live has been charged with fraud for misappropriating funding for personal use...these researchers are not getting rich from funding they're required to account for where the money is spent...

 

You do realize that no climate scientist including the skeptics deny that CO2 causes temperature increases, right?( for example Roy Spencer)

 

Huh less than 1 deg C. That's doubling CO2. Where's the global warming there?

 

CO2 is about .003% of the atmosphere's composition, and Humans cause about 3% of total CO2 emitted. What's the problem?

 

So your moving the goalposts again. Previously you showed us how the temperatures of three cities were supposedly lower in 2013 than in 1984. When I played your game and showed you how the temperatures of 5 cities were higher in 2013 than in 1984, it suddenly did not matter.
Now I showed you how CO2 does increase temperature, now you again change your tune by asking "where's the global warming?"
I'll ask you straight out: Do you now admit that you were wrong and that CO2 does increase global temps? We'll worry about how much in your next lesson.

 

No, I don't believe that CO2 causes temperature increases. You pointed out Roy Spencer. I only commented on your post. I'm not convinced he's convinced either. There hasn't been any proof, only correlation. just because one increases and so does the other is not proof of causation. I've stated that already. You prove it, provide me some evidence, not something someone else believes, you your evidence why you believe.