Hype sells!

[PLC1]

huh. Well I don't ever remember saying it any different. But then, the way you have twist answers about global warming to mean things it didn't, then likely this is the same.

Is that your final answer?

Yes of course. Conservatism was never so narrow to only mean limited government.[/QUOTE]

Well, then, I'm afraid I can't be a conservative if I also have to swallow crackpot ideas about modern science being wrong based on turning the scientific method on its head and starting with a conclusion, if I have to believe that the limited government should be allowed into personal decisions, or that the limited government should be allowed to carry out military adventures in nations that have posed no threat. Sorry, but that's just how I am.

 

[Andy]

Yes of course. Conservatism was never so narrow to only mean limited government.

Well, then, I'm afraid I can't be a conservative if I also have to swallow crackpot ideas about modern science being wrong based on turning the scientific method on its head and starting with a conclusion, if I have to believe that the limited government should be allowed into personal decisions, or that the limited government should be allowed to carry out military adventures in nations that have posed no threat. Sorry, but that's just how I am.[/QUOTE]

Good, we don't want someone following unscientific nonsense being lumped together with us.

Trust me, I never considered you to be a conservative, nor is it a big loss to have someone who follows some totally supportable theories, not in our group.

 

[PLC1]

Trust me, I never considered you to be a conservative, nor is it a big loss to have someone who follows some totally supportable theories, not in our group.

Totally supportable theories are the only kind I do subscribe to. The notion that creationism is a scientific theory is not one of them.

 

[Andy]

Totally supportable theories are the only kind I do subscribe to. The notion that creationism is a scientific theory is not one of them.

If you subscribe to man-made global warming, then you do not.
If you subscribe to macro-evolution, then you do not.

You might as well subscribe to theories about BigOil controlling international intelligence agency, controlling the mass media, to instigate wars between Jews and Arabs over land that contains no oil, to validate going into Iraq... or some other fruity non-sense.

And like I said... I personally would rather have informed individuals call themselves conservatives. Not some faith based non-sensical junk-science follower. Nothing personal, but if you believe stuff that's so easy to prove wrong, then you need to go learn a bit more about science before you claim to be of the same ideology as myself.

 

[PLC1]

If you subscribe to man-made global warming, then you do not.
If you subscribe to macro-evolution, then you do not.

Climate theory holds that the climate of the Earth is warming, and that man made greenhouse gasses are likely accelerating the process. There is no "man made global warming" theory.

If you're going to dispense with the theory of evolution, then I suppose modern biology must go as well.

 

[GenSeneca]

New Study Doesn’t Support Climate Models (But You’ll Never Hear About It)

PLC, do you take anything the skeptics have to say as seriously as you take the word and works of those who are proponents of AWG?

 

[Andy]

Climate theory holds that the climate of the Earth is warming, and that man made greenhouse gasses are likely accelerating the process. There is no "man made global warming" theory.

If you're going to dispense with the theory of evolution, then I suppose modern biology must go as well.

Modern biology doesn't support evolution, but actually contradicts it.

Man made greenhouse gasses are so completely insignificant to the over-all picture, as to be irrelevant. At most, a rough estimation would be that the entire increase in temp due to man-made greenhouse gas would be about 0.074º C. Or, around eight one hundredths of 1 degree Celsius. So even from the best most recent information, our contribution to wide shifts in temp that reach as much as 1.5º C, is 0.08º C. In other words, not even enough to be noticed by human skin.

Further, the evidence doesn't even support the theory that greenhouse gasses drive climate change to start with. Even if you were to somehow make the case that our contribution to greenhouse gasses was in some way significant, there is no evidence that CO2 drives the climate. When you compare temp data and CO2 data from the ice core samples, what you find is that CO2 followed temp curves, not led them.

Further, even with recent data, CO2 concentration have increased during times when the global mean temp decreased, indicating that increases in CO2 levels didn't push temp change.

In other words, scientific data disproves man-made global warming. That's all there is to it.

 

[PLC1]

New Study Doesn’t Support Climate Models (But You’ll Never Hear About It)

PLC, do you take anything the skeptics have to say as seriously as you take the word and works of those who are proponents of AWG?

I'm not sure. Is your source arguing that there is no global warming, as your graphs seem to indicate, or that there is but it is not being caused by human activity?

This is from your link:

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more.

It goes on to say that the observed increase in temperature is not caused by humans.

That might be correct, as the science of global climate change simply says that it is likely that the observed changes are being accelerated by greenhouse gasses being released by human activity. Note the term "likely" and "accelerated by" as opposed to "for sure" and caused by.

If you're going to try to argue that the climate of the Earth is not changing, you're going to have a hard time doing it. If your argument is that it is not being caused by human activity, then you might have a shot.

However, it is highly unlikely that a bunch of people discussing whatever on an internet forum is going to come up with any definitive proof or disproof of any scientific theory.

 

[Andy]

I'm not sure. Is your source arguing that there is no global warming, as your graphs seem to indicate, or that there is but it is not being caused by human activity?

It goes on to say that the observed increase in temperature is not caused by humans.

That might be correct, as the science of global climate change simply says that it is likely that the observed changes are being accelerated by greenhouse gasses being released by human activity. Note the term "likely" and "accelerated by" as opposed to "for sure" and caused by.

If you're going to try to argue that the climate of the Earth is not changing, you're going to have a hard time doing it. If your argument is that it is not being caused by human activity, then you might have a shot.

However, it is highly unlikely that a bunch of people discussing whatever on an internet forum is going to come up with any definitive proof or disproof of any scientific theory.

Once again you event a clearly false straw-man argument and attack it. Did he say the climate of the Earth isn't changing? In fact, the very graph he himself posted, shows most obviously the climate is changing, as it's always changed.

The climate is constantly in a state of flux, and always will be.

The question, is has man-made greenhouse gasses caused it?

The answer is obviously no. Look at the graph. Clearly, it has been colder in the past than before the industrial revolution, and hotter in the past than it is now. Both were passing phases of climate change far greater than anything caused by recent man-made activities.

I any case, you always revert back to a straw-man argument that someone somewhere must be claiming the climate change isn't happening. That is an empty un-scientific argument.

 

[PLC1]

Once again you event a clearly false straw-man argument and attack it. Did he say the climate of the Earth isn't changing? In fact, the very graph he himself posted, shows most obviously the climate is changing, as it's always changed.

The climate is constantly in a state of flux, and always will be.

The question, is has man-made greenhouse gasses caused it?

The answer is obviously no. Look at the graph. Clearly, it has been colder in the past than before the industrial revolution, and hotter in the past than it is now. Both were passing phases of climate change far greater than anything caused by recent man-made activities.

I any case, you always revert back to a straw-man argument that someone somewhere must be claiming the climate change isn't happening. That is an empty un-scientific argument.

I didn't make a straw man, or any other kind of argument. What I did was ask for clarification.

The graph clearly shows a recent downturn in temperatures. The rest of the source seems to be saying that the climate is changing, but that humans aren't causing it.

As for "someone somewhere must be claiming that the climate isn't changing," there is this from the king of conservative thought himself (yes, that was sarcasm):

It's truly amazing that most global warming fanatics are too obtuse to realize this phenomenon, especially when they preach that the most noticeable increases in temperature are at night. There is one other crucial tidbit of information that supports the idea that warming is a ground level phenomenon caused by urban sprawl - we've used satellite data for approximately twenty years to study atmospheric temperatures....and they have shown a slight decrease in global temperatures....remarkable, isn't it?

And, here is what Fox News had to say less than a year ago on the subject:

Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming.

Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

So, yes, someone somewhere is saying that climate change is not happening. What my post did was ask just what point GenSeneca was making. I already know where Andy stands:

Global warming is real, but man is not to blame, and no one, anywhere, is saying that it isn't real. Arguing against someone saying that it isn't real is a straw man. That's Andy's stated position.

 

[GenSeneca]

What my post did was ask just what point GenSeneca was making.

I asked you a question with my post, I think you answered it by saying you didn't think mankind was to blame for climate change.

If I were to make any point it would be this:

The AGW crowd blamed mans CO2 for warming the planet and called it Global Warming... Now the planet is cooling and they are still blaming mans CO2 but now calling it "Climate Change"... Of course the climate changes, its never been static.

So, yes, someone somewhere is saying that climate change is not happening.

Just isn't Rush saying that... The link you posted was all fan letters to Rush without any quotes from Rush saying the climate wasn't changing. In fact, he has pointed out many times that the climate does change and its natural, even jokingly referring to climate change as happening on predictable intervals with their own names: Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall.

 

[PLC1]

I asked you a question with my post, I think you answered it by saying you didn't think mankind was to blame for climate change.

If I were to make any point it would be this:

The AGW crowd blamed mans CO2 for warming the planet and called it Global Warming... Now the planet is cooling and they are still blaming mans CO2 but now calling it "Climate Change"... Of course the climate changes, its never been static.


Just isn't Rush saying that... The link you posted was all fan letters to Rush without any quotes from Rush saying the climate wasn't changing. In fact, he has pointed out many times that the climate does change and its natural, even jokingly referring to climate change as happening on predictable intervals with their own names: Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall.

The global warming debate has changed course, no doubt about it. The scientific community is saying that the average temperature of the Earth has increased over the past hundred years, and that it is continuing to increase on average. There are fluctuations, of course, but the general trend is toward warmer average temperatures. They are saying that the warming of the Earth will produce changes in local weather, as well as longer term changes in climate. They are saying that the change is likely being accelerated by greenhouse gasses released by human activity.

That much can be supported by observations anyone can research on the internet.

They are not saying that there are no natural causes, that we can reverse the changes, or that the result will necessarily be a disaster for humankind.

So, what we have are voices on one side warning us that we'd better change our carbon producing ways, or else. We have voices on the other side saying that there is no such thing as global warming, that the Earth is actually cooling off, or that the warming we are seeing is due to "summer".

Neither side has a leg to stand on. Both of them are wrong.