Climate Change denial vs History

Please don't. I mean no offence, but if you really think an Angel could be causing global warming by pouring something into the sun I think you've accidentally wandered into the wrong thread by accident. I am happy for you to gain solace how ever you can but I have no idea why you brought it up in our conversation.

 

So you "doubt" was actual experts (who do a lot more than wear labcoats) say because of....God?

 

I look into it myself, and come to my own "personal conclusions". You on the other hand, take the word of someone with a "title" (PHD) and "white cloak", without every looking into it yourself. And without drawing your own "personal conclusions" on the matter.

"Actual experts (who do a lot more than wear labcoats)". Do they do a lot more than wear labcoats? Of course, they have to lie and deceive, and find very useful ways to go about it. Now, I'm not saying this about every scientist, for there are many who do work for the benefit of humanity, and for themselves as to "discover" and or "prove all things".

But there are far more in political pockets, and will say whatever that requires them to, in order for a "fat payday". If you think that's impossible, I don't what to tell you, other than it has gone on all throughout mankind, where kings and queens would not only hold a religious man in the court, but also "scientists" to influence the people of that kingdom. Regardless if that religion or "science" was true or false. We was warned of this in scripture.

 

So I take the word of actual scientists and you "look into yourself" and depend on some hackneyed version of religion...

Mmmmmmmkayyy

 

Shoo God bother-er shoo. You are in the wrong thread. Try one of the many threads about religion to do your proselytizing in.

 

I'm not the one that brought it up. It doesn't matter what I talk about, somebody always comes in and says something like, "Oh is that because the earth is flat". It's you guys who always brig it up.

 

Yes you did, right here

You and I were having a perfectly relevant to the thread conversation about social responsibility and you came up with the drivel above.
Keep it in church dude.............

 

What's wrong with that. That's what I believe. Do I need to do as you say? Should I bend a knee to you?

Political Opinions and "BELIEFS"!

 

POLITICAL opinions and "beliefs"!

 

What are you meaning?

 

The INSTRUMENTS are far better, but the places where the readings are being taken are far less reliably natural.

No, there is a HUGE difference between proxy data and instrument data.

No they aren't. That's just flat false. The differences are minimal.

No, we cannot. Recent instrument temperature records are far too compromised by human activities other than CO2 emissions.

 

Bingo! You don't understand the difference. But I do. And it is crucial.

The point is precisely that the consensus view DOES NOT SUPPORT AGW screamers.

 

I doubt that. But your having changed the subject means you agree with my point. Great!

Let's keep going.

I'm not sure you're awake yet. You respond to my statement about data today being different from data 40 years ago, and you talk about proxy data. They did have instruments 40 years ago, you know....

Wow! So that means you actually have instrumental data from the years 1000 to 1200 AD?

Now that's interesting. Show, please. Not the data. The instruments. That's the real important part!

 

It does not support any person... screamers or not. It just supports the fact that the earth is getting warmer, and that this is caused by human activity.

 

NO IT DOES NOT. It supports the fact that the earth GOT warmer in the 20th century, and that human activities including CO2 emissions were a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. It in no sense supports the AGW screamer claim that CO2 has been, is, and will continue to be the main driver of global temperature change in the 21st century.

 

But you are wrong.

I most certainly did not change the subject, so your false claim that I did means you know you have been proved wrong, and you have no answers. Great!

Yes, but not 400 or 4000 years ago, which is when proxy data were being preserved. Do you even know what the subject is?

No, of course it doesn't. Your powers of logical deduction appear to have been strained well past their breaking point.

Can you provide an explanation of why I might be motivated to respond to such absurd, disingenuous garbage?

 

And it would have been stopped by.... what? The Y2K bug?

Now, of course, as experimental evidence shows, that is absolutely false. But I can't wait to hear your explanation as to why it would suddenly stop.

 

Okay have you ANY idea of the scope of the global temperature dataset

Hint it is GLOBAL

 

Have you actually read the IPCC reports?

Until you do you are basing your beliefs on what someone said someone else might have thought that the other might believe

 

I have been waiting for this response all day. Especially since Brington would explain his amazing comparisson of the temperatures
today and in the year 1000 and 1200 using instrumental data

I sure hope (s)he delivers... let's see. I'll skip the nonsense and get to the good part.

Oh no! Sounds like you're preparing to back-track.

Pay attention!

To my statement: "The difference between temperatures today and those in 1000 and 1200 are so great..."
You responded: "No they aren't. That's just flat false. The differences are minimal."

So, how do you know that the differences are minimal? Since you have expressed that comparing proxy and instrumental data is inadequate (though you favor less sophisticated terms), that can only mean that you have seen a comparison of instrumental vs instrumental data showing those "minimal" differences. How else would you know that the differences are minimal? So where is that data? And, more importantly, what instruments were used to measure the temperatures between 1000 and 1200? (please, let it involve a time-machine... please, let it involve a time-machine...)

 

That's something you made up.

In your dreams.

Yes. Do:

By the modest differences in natural vegetation, as shown by both contemporaneous accounts of weather, climate, farming, etc. and examination of biological deposits such as peat bogs, lake sediments, etc.

No, you made that up.

See above.

<yawn>

 

The parts that looked interesting.

Garbage. I have read the parts that appeared to have relevant information (most are just blatant propaganda). And in any case, the subject here was the vaunted 97% consensus of scientists, not the absurd IPCC nonscience.

 

Your comment is probably the least intellectual comment in this thread.

 

By its modest concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 hasn't been the major driver of global temperature for hundreds of millions of years.

Garbage. The evidence is unequivocal that there is at best a modest relationship between temperature and CO2, and before the modern era, temperature led CO2, not the other way around.

That's almost literally equivalent to asking why I would suddenly stop beating my wife. It didn't stop. It wasn't the major driver of temperature in the 20th century, either. The (false) AGW screamer claim is that it STARTED to be the major driver of temperature when its concentration significantly exceeded the pre-industrial background level.

 

It is NOW. But AGW screaming relies on comparison (and alteration) of the current readings and older readings. And the older the instrument site, the more likely its integrity is to have been compromised by human activities other than CO2 emissions. If the screamers wanted to really make a case, they would use only comparisons of readings from instrument sites where there has been no significant change in human activities, land use, etc. But they don't, because such sites don't support the screamer claims.