Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 38
Send Topic Print
The Myth of the 97% consensus claim (Read 38148 times)
rabbitoh08
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #180 - Aug 11th, 2015 at 12:44pm
 
lee wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 2:01pm:
Of course El Nino's, a sun warming event, is natural.

ENSO isn't directly related to solar irradiance, it is driven but changes in oceanic currents.  Solar irradiance may affect the magnitude of an ENSO event, but no - El Nino isn't a "sun warming event".
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #181 - Aug 11th, 2015 at 1:05pm
 
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 12:44pm:
lee wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 2:01pm:
Of course El Nino's, a sun warming event, is natural.

ENSO isn't directly related to solar irradiance, it is driven but changes in oceanic currents.  Solar irradiance may affect the magnitude of an ENSO event, but no - El Nino isn't a "sun warming event".

...lee is trying to reduce the complexity of the thermohaline cycle to a linear equation.

What else can a crack smoker in a batman suit do ??

Roll Eyes

The level of debate on this forum reflects exactly the level of debate in our houses of parliament and the lib voters are so embarrassed because they have just been very publicly told it's their fault!


Question time today will be very interesting indeed!


Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #182 - Aug 11th, 2015 at 1:13pm
 
Ajax wrote on Aug 8th, 2015 at 11:40am:
Robot wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 11:39pm:
lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:23pm:
<image and link graph removed>


Oh No's.


The graph you have provided is the surface temperature for the North Atlantic--it does not show global temperature changes.

The nickname for climate change is 'global warming', not 'North Atlantic warming'.

The global temperature has increased steadily for decades.

From NASA:
climate. nasa. gov/images/616910main_gisstemp_2011_graph_lrg.jpg


We all agree on this, but is it natural warming or as the IPCC explains it, all due to mans emissions of CO2...???

That is the crux of this debate / argument...!!!!!!!!!

The ol' wedge politics!
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17324
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #183 - Aug 11th, 2015 at 3:38pm
 
Rabbitoh08, Ships "noisy" data, now incorporated in NASA and NOOA data sets, has error bars of +/-1.7C. Now tell me your warming from tampered data sets in statistically significant.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #184 - Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm
 
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 12:39pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 1:04pm:
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:55pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:51pm:
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:35pm:
lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:23pm:

Yes - that North Atlantic Sea Surface temperature graph is interesting.

But why just select one small portion of the world's ocean?  And why select just the tiny fraction of that ocean that is the surface temperature?

the same website you are quoting from has global ocean temperature as well:
0 - 100m:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/World3monthTemperatureSince1955Depth0-100m.gif

and 0 - 700m
http://www.climate4you.com/images/World3monthTemperatureSince1979Depth0-700m.gif
http://www.climate4you.com

Why didn't you show us these graphs instead?

make it fairly clear don't they, that the planet is warming.

And makes Longy's claim that:
"NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming" seem very, ,very silly.

Doesn't seem to be any pause in the warming of the world's oceans, does there Longy?

You told a lie - didn't you Longy.
NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM DIDN'T all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming, did they.

You just made that up - then ran away like a little girl when called on it


"This is what the NASA release is addressing:

In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world’s oceans — above the 1.24-mile mark — is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the “missing” heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim. This latest study is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean. Scientists have been taking the temperature of the top half of the ocean directly since 2005, using a network of 3,000 floating temperature probes called the Argo array.

“The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure,” said JPL’s William Llovel, lead author of the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. “The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is — not much.”
In summary, NASA reports that deep ocean water temperatures neither explain the increase in ocean surface temperatures, nor why global temperatures appear to have paused in recent years."

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/185975-nasa-report-released-deep-ocean-waters-sh...

Is there a reason you posted this quote without explanation?

What exactly are you trying to tell us?


That Nasa, in this particular paper admitted they couldn't explain the 'slow-down' (or hiatus) in temperature increases in recent years.

I know you're a bit slow....but surely the highlighted sections are self-explanatory (to rational people, anyway)

But it does nothing to change the simple fact that the planet is clearly warming.

Surface temperatures are still clearly increasing, and remain at historically high levels.  Even recent La Nina years are among the warmest ever recorded.

Oceans are clearly warming - though not below 700m as was initially expected.

The cryosphere is still clearly decreasing.

THe planet is clearly and unambiguously warming.  Yes - there is some uncertainty as to why surface temperatures (a very small part of the global heat budget) seem to be increasing a a slower rate than other parts of the system - but the planet is still clearly and unambiguously warming.  That quote does nothing to pace any doubt in this.  All is does is say no increase has yet been measured in the ocean abyss .

It certainly does nothing to support Longy's often repeated lie:   

"NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming"

Notice how he is still running away from that lie?               


Actually it does support that NASA at least did accept there had been a 'pause' (or at least a noticeable slowdown) in global warming. That they have now decided that there isn't/wasn't and that "they never said it" doesn't change that NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations did acknowledge it, which makes Longweekend's statement true.
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
rabbitoh08
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #185 - Aug 11th, 2015 at 5:52pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
Actually it does support that NASA at least did accept there had been a 'pause' (or at least a noticeable slowdown) in global warming. 

No. It doesn't.  Not at all.

Do you understand the difference between "GLOBAL warming" - and the very, very small part of that phenomena that is surface temperatures?

Or are you just pretending to be ignorant?


gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
That they have now decided that there isn't/wasn't and that "they never said it" doesn't change that NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations did acknowledge it, which makes Longweekend's statement true. 

No.  Longweekend's statement in not in anyway true.  Thatis why he cannot find anything to support it.

NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations DO NOT acknowledge a "pause in global warming".  Look at their websites - they all say the exact opposite.

Once more - there is far more to "global warming" than the tiny, tiny bit of it that is surface temperature.

What don't you understand about this?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17324
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #186 - Aug 11th, 2015 at 6:24pm
 
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 5:52pm:
NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations DO NOT acknowledge a "pause in global warming".



'Box 9.2 |  Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than
over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational
data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3,
Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11ºC per
decade over 1951–2012. '

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

'Between 1998 and 2012, climate scientists observed a slowdown in the rate at which the Earth's surface air temperature was rising. While the rise in global mean surface air temperature has continued, between 1998 and 2012 the increase was approximately one third of that from 1951 to 2012.

This trend — referred to as a "global warming hiatus" — has sparked a lot of debate and given rise to a reasonable question: Is global warming coming to a halt?'

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/

The "hiatus" has also been called the "pause"

'A global warming hiatus,[3] also sometimes referred to as a global warming pause[4] or a global warming slowdown,[5] is a period of relatively little change in globally averaged surface temperatures.[6] In the current episode of global warming many such periods are evident in the surface temperature record, along with robust evidence of the long term warming trend.[3]'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

Really, do we need to do this each and every time?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #187 - Aug 11th, 2015 at 8:02pm
 
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 5:52pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
Actually it does support that NASA at least did accept there had been a 'pause' (or at least a noticeable slowdown) in global warming. 

No. It doesn't.  Not at all.

Do you understand the difference between "GLOBAL warming" - and the very, very small part of that phenomena that is surface temperatures?

Or are you just pretending to be ignorant?


gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
That they have now decided that there isn't/wasn't and that "they never said it" doesn't change that NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations did acknowledge it, which makes Longweekend's statement true. 

No.  Longweekend's statement in not in anyway true.  Thatis why he cannot find anything to support it.

NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations DO NOT acknowledge a "pause in global warming".  Look at their websites - they all say the exact opposite.

Once more - there is far more to "global warming" than the tiny, tiny bit of it that is surface temperature.

What don't you understand about this?


Yes it does, I know it goes against your deeply held belief on the subject, but it has still been acknowledged at one point.

That's the beauty of the internet though, isn't it. Even if you go back and edit your own websites/literature, it's almost impossible to find every copy.
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
rabbitoh08
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #188 - Aug 28th, 2015 at 1:48am
 
lee wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 6:24pm:
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 5:52pm:
NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations DO NOT acknowledge a "pause in global warming".



'Box 9.2 |  Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global mean
surface temperature
(GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than
over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational
data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3,
Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11ºC per
decade over 1951–2012. '

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

'Between 1998 and 2012, climate scientists observed a slowdown in the rate at which the Earth's
surface air temperature
was rising. While the rise in global mean surface air temperature has continued, between 1998 and 2012 the increase was approximately one third of that from 1951 to 2012.

This trend — referred to as a "global warming hiatus" — has sparked a lot of debate and given rise to a reasonable question: Is global warming coming to a halt?'

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/

The "hiatus" has also been called the "pause"

'A global warming hiatus,[3] also sometimes referred to as a global warming pause[4] or a global warming slowdown,[5] is a period of relatively little change in globally averaged
surface temperatures
.[6] In the current episode of global warming many such periods are evident in the surface temperature record, along with robust evidence of the long term warming trend.[3]'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

Really, do we need to do this each and every time?

Yes - it appears we do need to do this each and every time - until you can understand this simple fact:

there is far more to "global warming" than the tiny, tiny bit of it that is surface temperature.

What don't you understand about this?

Are you being deliberately dense?  Or are you really just that ignorant?

What is it?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
rabbitoh08
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #189 - Aug 28th, 2015 at 1:54am
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 8:02pm:
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 5:52pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
Actually it does support that NASA at least did accept there had been a 'pause' (or at least a noticeable slowdown) in global warming. 

No. It doesn't.  Not at all.

Do you understand the difference between "GLOBAL warming" - and the very, very small part of that phenomena that is surface temperatures?

Or are you just pretending to be ignorant?


gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
That they have now decided that there isn't/wasn't and that "they never said it" doesn't change that NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations did acknowledge it, which makes Longweekend's statement true. 

No.  Longweekend's statement in not in anyway true.  Thatis why he cannot find anything to support it.

NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations DO NOT acknowledge a "pause in global warming".  Look at their websites - they all say the exact opposite.

Once more - there is far more to "global warming" than the tiny, tiny bit of it that is surface temperature.

What don't you understand about this?


Yes it does, I know it goes against your deeply held belief on the subject, but it has still been acknowledged at one point.

That's the beauty of the internet though, isn't it. Even if you go back and edit your own websites/literature, it's almost impossible to find every copy.

No.. It is not a "deeply held belief".

Longweekend is a liar.  This has been proven.

NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations DO NOT acknowledge a "pause in global warming".

If you think they do - then show us where

What NASA says is:
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Are you now a big a liar as Longweekend?

Reading what an organisation says on their website is not a "deeply held belief".  It is simple fact.  I have given you the link.

NASA does not acknowledge a "pause in global warming".  That is a lie.

It is a lie that Longweekend told.
It is a lie you now seem to be supporting.

Do you really want to be seen as a snivelling liar like Longweekend?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
rabbitoh08
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #190 - Aug 28th, 2015 at 1:58am
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 12:39pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 1:04pm:
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:55pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:51pm:
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:35pm:
lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:23pm:

Yes - that North Atlantic Sea Surface temperature graph is interesting.

But why just select one small portion of the world's ocean?  And why select just the tiny fraction of that ocean that is the surface temperature?

the same website you are quoting from has global ocean temperature as well:
0 - 100m:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/World3monthTemperatureSince1955Depth0-100m.gif

and 0 - 700m
http://www.climate4you.com/images/World3monthTemperatureSince1979Depth0-700m.gif
http://www.climate4you.com

Why didn't you show us these graphs instead?

make it fairly clear don't they, that the planet is warming.

And makes Longy's claim that:
"NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming" seem very, ,very silly.

Doesn't seem to be any pause in the warming of the world's oceans, does there Longy?

You told a lie - didn't you Longy.
NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM DIDN'T all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming, did they.

You just made that up - then ran away like a little girl when called on it


"This is what the NASA release is addressing:

In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world’s oceans — above the 1.24-mile mark — is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the “missing” heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim. This latest study is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean. Scientists have been taking the temperature of the top half of the ocean directly since 2005, using a network of 3,000 floating temperature probes called the Argo array.

“The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure,” said JPL’s William Llovel, lead author of the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. “The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is — not much.”
In summary, NASA reports that deep ocean water temperatures neither explain the increase in ocean surface temperatures, nor why global temperatures appear to have paused in recent years."

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/185975-nasa-report-released-deep-ocean-waters-sh...

Is there a reason you posted this quote without explanation?

What exactly are you trying to tell us?


That Nasa, in this particular paper admitted they couldn't explain the 'slow-down' (or hiatus) in temperature increases in recent years.

I know you're a bit slow....but surely the highlighted sections are self-explanatory (to rational people, anyway)

But it does nothing to change the simple fact that the planet is clearly warming.

Surface temperatures are still clearly increasing, and remain at historically high levels.  Even recent La Nina years are among the warmest ever recorded.

Oceans are clearly warming - though not below 700m as was initially expected.

The cryosphere is still clearly decreasing.

THe planet is clearly and unambiguously warming.  Yes - there is some uncertainty as to why surface temperatures (a very small part of the global heat budget) seem to be increasing a a slower rate than other parts of the system - but the planet is still clearly and unambiguously warming.  That quote does nothing to pace any doubt in this.  All is does is say no increase has yet been measured in the ocean abyss .

It certainly does nothing to support Longy's often repeated lie:   

"NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming"

Notice how he is still running away from that lie?               


Actually it does support that NASA at least did accept there had been a 'pause' (or at least a noticeable slowdown) in global warming.  

No it doesn't .

Are you really this stupid?  Or are you as dishonest as Longweekend?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
rabbitoh08
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #191 - Aug 28th, 2015 at 2:03am
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
Actually it does support that NASA at least did accept there had been a 'pause' (or at least a noticeable slowdown) in global warming. That they have now decided that there isn't/wasn't and that "they never said it" doesn't change that NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations did acknowledge it, which makes Longweekend's statement true. 

Oh.. You are a big a liar as Longweekend.  How pathetic.

Show us where NASA said there has been a "pause in global warming".

We are waiting liar.

Not just surface temperature - A tiny part of the global climactic system.

Show us where NASA said there has been a "pause in global warming".

Let me help - here is the NASA website - it says:

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

So come on liar - show us where NASA says there has been a "pause in global warming".

We are waiting - from you liar - and your liar mate Longweekend.

Simple cut and paste.  easy as that. Show us where NASA says there has been a "pause in global warming".

I have just shown you where their website says the exact opposite.  What have you got?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ImSpartacus2
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6913
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #192 - Aug 28th, 2015 at 8:10am
 
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 2:03am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
Actually it does support that NASA at least did accept there had been a 'pause' (or at least a noticeable slowdown) in global warming. That they have now decided that there isn't/wasn't and that "they never said it" doesn't change that NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations did acknowledge it, which makes Longweekend's statement true. 

Oh.. You are a big a liar as Longweekend.  How pathetic.

Show us where NASA said there has been a "pause in global warming".

We are waiting liar.

Not just surface temperature - A tiny part of the global climactic system.

Show us where NASA said there has been a "pause in global warming".

Let me help - here is the NASA website - it says:

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

So come on liar - show us where NASA says there has been a "pause in global warming".

We are waiting - from you liar - and your liar mate Longweekend.

Simple cut and paste.  easy as that. Show us where NASA says there has been a "pause in global warming".

I have just shown you where their website says the exact opposite.  What have you got?
There is a lot of money in global warming denial because the people who are financing it, the fossil fuel industry, have a lot to lose.  And so they are flooding the internet with socks and mountains of misinformation to delay meaningful AGW action. The socks are despicable enough but those who have no climate science background telling us the experts are wrong are so irresponsible that there conduct if criminal as well IMO.Fortunately the world is waking up and many now are calling for these people to be punished for their crime to humanity AND importantly the internet never forgets.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mariacostel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #193 - Aug 28th, 2015 at 8:25am
 
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 8:10am:
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 2:03am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
Actually it does support that NASA at least did accept there had been a 'pause' (or at least a noticeable slowdown) in global warming. That they have now decided that there isn't/wasn't and that "they never said it" doesn't change that NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations did acknowledge it, which makes Longweekend's statement true. 

Oh.. You are a big a liar as Longweekend.  How pathetic.

Show us where NASA said there has been a "pause in global warming".

We are waiting liar.

Not just surface temperature - A tiny part of the global climactic system.

Show us where NASA said there has been a "pause in global warming".

Let me help - here is the NASA website - it says:

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

So come on liar - show us where NASA says there has been a "pause in global warming".

We are waiting - from you liar - and your liar mate Longweekend.

Simple cut and paste.  easy as that. Show us where NASA says there has been a "pause in global warming".

I have just shown you where their website says the exact opposite.  What have you got?
There is a lot of money in global warming denial because the people who are financing it, the fossil fuel industry, have a lot to lose.  And so they are flooding the internet with socks and mountains of misinformation to delay meaningful AGW action. The socks are despicable enough but those who have no climate science background telling us the experts are wrong are so irresponsible that there conduct if criminal as well IMO.Fortunately the world is waking up and many now are calling for these people to be punished for their crime to humanity AND importantly the internet never forgets.



You are not seriously pretending that everyone who opposes Anthropogenic Climate Change is a paid shill? Are you that paranoid? It hasn't yet occurred to you that this is a divisive topic filled with intelligent educated people with strong opinions on either side? Good people make superb and powerful arguments that oppose your position. Maybe if you listened to them occasionally it would help.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ImSpartacus2
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6913
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #194 - Aug 28th, 2015 at 11:11am
 
mariacostel wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 8:25am:
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 8:10am:
rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 2:03am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
Actually it does support that NASA at least did accept there had been a 'pause' (or at least a noticeable slowdown) in global warming. That they have now decided that there isn't/wasn't and that "they never said it" doesn't change that NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations did acknowledge it, which makes Longweekend's statement true. 

Oh.. You are a big a liar as Longweekend.  How pathetic.

Show us where NASA said there has been a "pause in global warming".

We are waiting liar.

Not just surface temperature - A tiny part of the global climactic system.

Show us where NASA said there has been a "pause in global warming".

Let me help - here is the NASA website - it says:

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

So come on liar - show us where NASA says there has been a "pause in global warming".

We are waiting - from you liar - and your liar mate Longweekend.

Simple cut and paste.  easy as that. Show us where NASA says there has been a "pause in global warming".

I have just shown you where their website says the exact opposite.  What have you got?
There is a lot of money in global warming denial because the people who are financing it, the fossil fuel industry, have a lot to lose.  And so they are flooding the internet with socks and mountains of misinformation to delay meaningful AGW action. The socks are despicable enough but those who have no climate science background telling us the experts are wrong are so irresponsible that there conduct if criminal as well IMO.Fortunately the world is waking up and many now are calling for these people to be punished for their crime to humanity AND importantly the internet never forgets.



You are not seriously pretending that everyone who opposes Anthropogenic Climate Change is a paid shill? Are you that paranoid? It hasn't yet occurred to you that this is a divisive topic filled with intelligent educated people with strong opinions on either side? Good people make superb and powerful arguments that oppose your position. Maybe if you listened to them occasionally it would help.


I think you and gizmo fall into the irresponsible (albiet criminally irresponsible) class of people whose gullibility and ideology make them particularly suseptible to well funded propoganda. As to Lee and Ajax I believe they're dispicable socks.

I have yet to see an argument prepared and cut and pasted here by the minions of AGW denialist lobby that is even remotely logical or credible. There only purpose is to misinform, confuse and delay action to protect the only accessible environment in the universe that is capable of supporting human life .
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 38
Send Topic Print