Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

That data and geological knowledge is available to the climatologists.

100% of the actively publishing climatologists recognize that the Earth is warming and that humans are a significant factor.

And again, you have no basis for claiming "temps rose faster and slower, CO2 rose faster and slower, O2 rose faster and slower." You just said that it is possible and I can't prove it didn't.

 

Still dodging. I want you to prove what you just claimed that man is the primary cause of climate change with actual evidence that something man is doing specifically causes climate change at the data that proves that action is the primary cause of climate change.

Every time you duck the question of proof for your BS belief you prove my point.

 

CO2 Concentration Chart, year to year.



The up and down that you see there is the seasonal increase and decrease caused by plants giving up their leaves in the fall and then growing in the spring. The reason that the amount continues to increase, year to year, is because of the CO2 emissions from humans that are not being accounted for by the natural CO2 cycle. We can further confirm that hypothesis by measuring the isotopes of the CO2 found in the upper atmosphere. The type which is increasing, year to year, is the type of CO2 created by the combustion of fossil fuels.

 

And everytime you prove yourself incapable of even identifying a single hypothetical example of what you would consider "actual evidence."

 

Because its not my job to prove your claim. You made it. You have no limitation whatsoever to provide your proof of your claim. None. Go for it.

You keep running because you can't do it. And you keep proving that right every time you refuse to do so.

 

I didn't because that would be against TOS. But hey, if the shoe fits and you just want to wear it, be my guest.

 

Therein lies the failure of your analogy. You are using individuals who, by definition, already act according to the behavior you feel is appropriate. If a fat doctor told you to avoid high sugar and carbohydrates, would you tell him that he is clearly wrong?

To go back to climate change hypocrisy accusation, you would need to say "Tree hugging hippies do not fly personal jets or run coal fired power plants..." And they do not because they, by definition of being a tree hugging hippie, already act in a manner which is environmentally friendly. But even if a fat guy ran a coal power plant while raising a herd of cattle told you that the Earth is warming and that humans are a significant causal factor because they are pumping out greenhouse gases at a historically unprecedented rate, then the fat guy would still be accurate.

 

Humans have been part of the natural cycle for thousands of years. This seems utterly disingenuous to only include them now. Plus if you really look at the at graph, it covers a miniscule segment of 90 ppm stretched over almost four decades. There is a reason its cut like that, for dramatic effect, not because its actually significant. How sad of you folks...

 

And everytime you prove yourself incapable of even identifying a single hypothetical example of what you would consider "actual evidence."

That isn't proving my case, that is identifying the parameters of the debate. You have already imposed a whole host of limitations - you won't listen to the IPCC, you won't listen to temperature measurements, you won't listen to 100% of the actively publishing climatologists, you won't listen to explanations of how greenhouse gases work, you won't listen to explanations of the isotopes of CO2 found in the upper atmosphere, etc. etc.

Instead, you keep demanding "actual evidence" or "hard proof," but you are WHOLLY AND UTTERLY INCAPABLE of even identifying a single - even HYPOTHETICAL - example of such.

 

Humans have only started producing excessive amounts of CO2 after the industrial revolution.

Also, 90 ppm across four decades is INSANELY fast compared to the natural accumulation of CO2 in the absence of fossil fuel combustion.

 

You got a free path right here, right now. Do it.

 

Insanely fast compared to what other increase in CO2? We know it has been higher before, we have no idea what the natural rates of those increases were...

 

Call me a coward and a liar again.

 

We do. We have historical data, like the Ice Core Data from Volstok.

The last time that the CO2 rose by 80 ppm (which is the amount it rose from 1900 to 2000) during the previous 20,000 years, it took approximately 7500 years.

 

c&p? Not impressed, tough guy.

 

Is that how we measure our data now? I can get all of last year's climate data from an ice core sample? That doesn't tell you the rate, not even close. You folks are trying to compare apples to asteroids and pretending its something remotely similar, its not...

 

Unproven and lack of data on your part make your argument invalid.

 

The parameters have been defined.

You made the claim humans are the primary cause of climate change.

So prove it. Of course you can't that's why you keep dodging.

I'll even make it simpler for you.

Identify the primary catalyst for climate change and prove that its the primary catalyst.

Then prove humans create that catalyst in numbers far outweighing any other contributor.

There you have your parameters. Now are you going to dodge it again or actually start proving your BS claim Legal?

 

Complete fabrication.

Roughly 400 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 dropped from 4,500 ppm to 3,000 ppm, yet according to fossil records, world temperatures shot rapidly back up to an average 72 degrees. ... Both CO2 and temperatures shot back up at the end of it just when the main Mesozoic dinosaur era.

Guess what? No fossil fuels back then. Then there is this:

"Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future.

The findings are detailed in a recent paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

Why do you make stuff up and not think people can refute such obvious nonsense? It's not even hard to shoot down such crap.

 

It becomes painfully obvious when the conversation keeps being sidetracked by some people.

 

If we dont nuke ourselves, nature will find a way to thin the herd. We dont need to reduce American citizens into the abject poverty of a socialist utopia....

 

We dont need ice core data to measure last years climate data. We need ice core data to measure climate data that is older than the data which can be collected through tree rings.

 

No, those limitations in the data mean that one must make some assumptions and allow for some margins of error.

They do not invalidate the argument.

The Earth is warming and humans are a significant, and almost certainly a majority, causal factor.

What part of that argument do you think is made invalid by the limitations on evaluating data from thousands or millions or billions of years ago?

 

You have yet to provide a single hypothetical example of a type or amount of data that you would consider proof.

Again.