Top physicist on climate change....

[genuineoriginal]

CO2 is both a cause AND an effect of the global warming of the interglacial periods.

Not according to the graphs.

Periodic Earth orbital changes cause the first warming,

You present a plausible idea.

followed by rising CO2 which provides positive feedback.

This is where you switched your brain off and chose not to pursue the science to see whether it is valid.

CO₂ is not responsible for global warming.
CO₂ does not produce enough of a "greenhouse gas" effect to produce a "positive feedback" in the real world, it only produces this in the flawed computer simulations that begin with an exaggerated idea of the effect of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

This is proven by the failure of the model to predict the global temperatures over the past 10 years.

Climate scientists stopped using science when they started falsely claiming that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are causing climate change.

 

[gcthomas]

Not according to the graphs.

The graphs are not the totality of the science. CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas since the 1860s.

CO₂ does not produce enough of a "greenhouse gas" effect to produce a "positive feedback" in the real world, it only produces this in the flawed computer simulations that begin with an exaggerated idea of the effect of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

There weren't any computer models in the 1860s, or the 1890s when Arrhenius did his computations.

This is proven by the failure of the model to predict the global temperatures over the past 10 years.

The models are fine, but the absence of polar temperature measurements underestimated the actual warming. Now those measurements are in, it turns out that the 10 year hiatus in warming was an illusion.

But you will hold onto the incomplete measurements solely because it lets you keep a disproven idea in your head.

Question: What sort of evidence would you require to convince you that global warming is a real and present phenomenon?

 

[gcthomas]

Evolutionists will always look at a man's history as if it provided a reason to reject the evidence.

When that man is presented as an expert, it is reasonable to test that claim, isn't it?

Or do you accept all claims of expertise from people who have an issue to advocate, or a book to sell? (I suspect you do, to be honest, but maybe you'd like to comment.)

 

[chrysostom]

I am starting to worry about climate change

just when I am getting use to the hot weather

it starts getting colder

 

[gcthomas]

I am starting to worry about climate change

just when I am getting use to the hot weather

it starts getting colder

You seem to be talking about the weather getting colder when we are discussing the climate.

Weather != climate

 

[tetelestai]

Question: What sort of evidence would you require to convince you that global warming is a real

Um....it would actually have to start getting warmer, instead of colder.

When the Great Lakes freeze over for the first time in decades, it's kind of hard to believe the planet is getting warmer.

If the planet is getting warmer, then why would the Great Lakes freeze over for the first time in decades?

Another thing that would convince me, would be if I stopped hearing about new "record low" temperatures all the time. For example, Lancaster, PA is expected to set a new record low temperature tonight.

If the earth is getting warmer, then why do I keep hearing about new record lows?

 

[gcthomas]

If the earth is getting warmer, then why do I keep hearing about new record lows?

Because weather is not the same thing as climate change. But I'm sure you have heard, and ignored, that truism before.

A warmer global climate produces more severe weather systems due to the extra energy, which in turn may produce more extreme weather events, both warm and cold, and both wet and dry, depending on location and chance.

 

[Interplanner]

Breitbart is a horrid source for anything that isn't speculative garbage. Further, I don't care how acclaimed you are, if you cannot present a sensible, accountable set of data to counter what we already have, you should not be included in the discussion.

Therefore why would you believe anything Obama says after what he did at the Glacier Bay ice field this summer?

 

[tetelestai]

Because weather is not the same thing as climate change.

You guys say that now, but back in 2008 that's not what I was hearing.

I was hearing about how there wasn't going to be any more snow, or how the mild winters were going to have an effect on plants and animals.

Now that it didn't happen, and Boston got 124 inches of snow last year, and the Great Lakes froze over, and Chicago had record cold temps, etc., you guys are now saying weather has nothing to do with climate.

Do you really want me to post all the quotes from climatologists from 2008?

 

[gcthomas]

https://s3-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/..._hr.jpeg&sp=d93f20eb9f47fad73f236e7e86fa327b

 

[Stripe]

When that man is presented as an expert, it is reasonable to test that claim, isn't it?

Only if you want to be a troll. His credentials have nothing to do with a rational discussion over the evidence.

However, evolutionists will argue anything — even providing a rabid defense of their ad hominem fixation — rather than sit down to a rational analysis of the data.

Or do you accept all claims of expertise from people who have an issue to advocate, or a book to sell?

No. I test their claims against the evidence. It is you who has shown that you test their claims against their credentials.

 

[gcthomas]

Stripe,
You are misrepresenting the original post, which was presenting a highly credentialed scientist as an example of what experts believe. The only evidence supplied was that he was a physicist. The post was based on his credentials, and now it has been shown that his credentials are worthless for your argument suddenly you change your mind?

I do love seeing you back pedal though, so carry on. :carryon:

 

[Jonahdog]

You seem to be talking about the weather getting colder when we are discussing the climate.

Weather != climate

That appears to be a tough concept for some. May be related to the concept that next quarters dividends are much more important than what a particular company will be doing in 10 years.

One would think that since in the USA corporations are people there would be more long term concerns, but I digest.

The bottom line in American culture remains "follow the $".

 

[Stripe]

You are misrepresenting the original post.

Nope.

His claims were a description of how society gets wrapped up in an idea and ignores science. He gave reasons for his beliefs.

A man's credentials do nothing to disestablish the truth of what he says. The sooner evolutionists learn this, the sooner a rational discussion can begin.

However, Darwinists are determined to talk about something else. His intelligence, the source, imaginary data... anything but the evidence.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope.



A man's credentials do nothing to disestablish the truth of what he says. The sooner evolutionists learn this, the sooner a rational discussion can begin.

However, Darwinists are determined to talk about something else. His intelligence, the source, imaginary data... anything but the evidence.

If that is true, why didn't you challenge Knight when he presented Lewis as a top scientist insider? Knight relied wholly on the man's alleged credentials.

And just a few years ago....

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

Since Lewis has presented NO evidence to support his claims outside his own area of expertise, there is no evidence to discuss.

So tell me, what evidence did you see in this post that you are defending? Or are you just trolling again?

 

[Stripe]

If that is true, why didn't you challenge Knight when he presented Lewis as a top scientist insider? Knight relied wholly on the man's alleged credentials.

Switching to the tu quoque fallacy to distract from the fact of your reliance on ad hominem is not going to help you.

Learn to respond rationally, then a discussion can happen. :up:

Since Lewis has presented NO evidence to support his claims outside his own area of expertise, there is no evidence to discuss.

What claims are those?

So tell me, what evidence did you see in this post that you are defending?

Evolutionists hate reading.

 

[OCTOBER23]

THE FISH ARE DIEING

AND THE RED TIDE IS GROWING.

IT IS THE TIME OF THE END.

Lets go fishing

 

[rocketman]

This cartoon illustrates the inconstancies & hysteria that the so-called science community has been positing publicly for years now. They would have much more credibility noting trends & just admitting they don't know...

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Evolutionists.

 

[ok doser]

Question: What sort of evidence would you require to convince you that global warming is a real and present phenomenon?

Um....it would actually have to start getting warmer, instead of colder.

:darwinsm:

:thumb: