Frank Talk

Same conclusions as as the other papers? Sure include them also. I only reffered up to 2003 because that was when the last survey was done.
Last time I checked I didn't cite An Inconvenient Truth.

And some would be who?
And that argument is easily reversed to make oxygen the source of life. No one says CO2 in it of itself is not harmful. Excess levels of CO2 is dangerous to the entire ecosystem, including plant life.

If your going to make such extreme claims then you should have peer-reviewed sources to back it up. Not random websites.
Somehow this leads to AGW being made up by the eugenics movement.

So deforestation isn't human caused? CO2 emissions aren't going to effect CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

These vague generalizations are getting annoying.

Yet you keep repeating this stupid lag argument.



Kid, I can almost guarantee I understand it better than you, and I'm up for a discussion on it but one thing I don't understand is what the **** this has to do with anthropogenic global warming.


You really want me to go through it.

Classic cherry-picking. 1998 was a strong El Nino year, the long term trend persists.



Already debunked crap. The graph he uses is way off.

This:


Compared to this:


The hockey stick graph holds up. (See this paper)

No their not.



Do I need to continue?

BmanMcfly

Childish attitude?? excuse me?? Childish for asking questions? that people don't so much answer but quote in an attempt to ridicule... I wasn't the one to begin the outright attack... which is definately a sign of the weakness in your arguments if you then resort to attacking me personally....

I've said repeatedly that my 'expertise' is limited in science, but that I can think logically and critically of what is presented... first it was lack of 'consensus', so I showed that; then it was a lack of peer-reviewed study, I showed that; I get called a conspiracy theorist, so I show evidence for that; I show that this ties to other areas, I show the evidence for that and once beat am told to 'keep to subject'...

Then to point out this attack makes ME childish??

At least finally a couple others have come up and at least helped support some of my argument... when you can't see your own double-speak, you really are a great citizen for the 'new world' unable to question what's presented.

I've tried to concede a middle ground 4 times now, where we both sides could agree that what affects climate for real is still 'undecided' and thus up for debate... then I'm repeated the claims of the 'consensus of government funded scientists and reviewers' (which isn't a REAL consensus by ANY stretch) means that the 'debate is over'... at some point you'll have to accept that the earth heats according to cycles that I don't have a full grasp on, and I doubt any scientist has a full grasp of all the intricacies... the calculations are beyond our most powerful super-computers.

Since you are the physicist explain to me how I'm wrong in believing that interstellar energy can enter our solar system, and potentially reach the earth?

Cause I'm going based on the idea that 'unless the energy is in other ways trapped or dissipated completely' (or pushed aside by 'solar winds') explain how that's not possible.

If so, how would you marry that to the fact that if there is visible light reaching that it's the only spectrum of energy to 'make it here'?

Now, assuming for a second that energy could arrive from other stars (I'm waiting for you to explain how that's not real still), galaxies, etc. clearly it would be greatly dissipated... but COULD that energy have an effect on earth?? Bonus points if you can show this without quoting from 'realclimate' or the 'IPCC'...

Bodhisattva

Why are you still engaging him on this idiotic propoganda that he keeps spewing forth?
It is not a lack of knowledge in physics that is the issue, it is a lack of intellectual honesty and/or capability that keeps this discussion from addressing the finer points and reaching a compromise.

The issue isn't understanding of physics, for most of the physics being discussed here is basic...
It is an understanding or other aspects such as interpretation skills and critical analysis reagrding recognizing and researching relevant data that is the issue.

That is why I have only engaged him in aspects that deal with language and thinking, in a sense, psychology.
If one can tear down the aspects that I outlined, then it makes the facts and position irrelevant due to being based upon a faulty to false foundation of reasoning...

__________________
"Only pompous idiots have a quotation as their signature" - Agnapostate

Bodhisattva

Here you go:

index

COSMIC RAYS AND EARTH'S CLIMATE

NASA - Home

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming - Telegraph

Science News, Articles and Information | Scientific American

National Geographic - Inspiring People to Care About the Planet

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

__________________
"Only pompous idiots have a quotation as their signature" - Agnapostate

BmanMcfly

See the post previous to that one...

No, but that movie was the catalyst to the politicization of AGW; and since the data he presents is the basis of the overall argument. Either you would be referring to it, or it's information is relevant.

Read the posts, find the quotes...

CO2 Science

Really??


This one is peer-reviewed : Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health? (ActionBioscience)


Either by directly or by coincidence... I don't know specifically all the names that are among these 'elite power brokers', I know the agenda is real, I know the means with which it will be accomplished (those culpable are like psychopaths that must let the world know what they are doing in an attmpt to be stopped) I was merely pointing out other pieces that show how environmentalism is being USED to further an agenda more importantly than whether or not Global warming is a man-made or natural occurance.


I"VE SAID THAT .... I said CO2 level increases are likely CAUSED BECAUSE of deforestation. But, just because there is an increase in the CO2 doesn't necessarily MEAN that suddenly the 'cause-effect' relationship would switch... and regardless, a carbon tax isn't giong to solve the problem.


Well, stop putting me through the cycle of 'specifying a single issue' for simplicity than attacking the simplification so I return with a more elaborate explanaition only to be demanded a more simplistic explanaition.

To claim having all the answers would be incredibly ignorant... regardless of which side of the debate.


Ya... the lag time just proves that one doesn't 'cause' the other... that the co2 concentration go above and beyond the temperature doesn't turn the co2 into the 'driver' of climate, just that we've hit a point of anomoly... the anomoly I would concede is human caused, but doesn't mean that temperatures will skyrocket on the next few years because of it.

Aww, you're getting angry again... muffin, I'm sorry that you can't handle it. What this has to do with Global warming is that it will create an environment of global agreements on 'the one issue that unites all of us' (environment) to be used as a pillar to later create a global government.

AKA: Climate Change is a RED HERRING to quell real debate on issues that might put 'business as usual' at risk. The people get proposed the 'problem' of global warman, people then 'react' by eventually giving up their power to government... and government provides a 'solution' that people would initially reject, which ultimately will be a global 'human' tax.

That you can't see the relation tells me that you don't see how people are manipulated... I mean, you probly still think that election fraud is a 'non-issue' like people have been led to believe.

It don't matter...


Classic cherry-picking. 1998 was a strong El Nino year, the long term trend persists.




No ... no don't bother... cause this is a circular argument... and wasn't among the dozen or so recent peer-reviewed studies I listed in a previous post. Why I've conceded the : More study Needed . so many times.

It's the politicization of 'the green movement' that is a bigger threat. Because this is what'll bring a pointless 'carbon tax' that'll just make mobility more expensive. Think of it like this : If you can't afford the technology to have a 'near zero' carbon footprint, then you are an enemy to be eliminated. That is the REAL threat we are eventually going to face. If you see that for what it is, it makes sense why 'why climate change deniers are compared to holocaust deniers (as example) or worse. That's not the type of environment that encourages real debate.

BmanMcfly

I know, that's all it takes is a basic understanding of physics and the workings of the world that you can come to the solution that cosmic rays would at the very least reach the planet... The level of effect I'll leave to scientists, but I still feel would give only a 'partial explanation' of the total workings of the world.

I've explained the same things in so many different ways, from so many perspectives... I'll let the reader come to the conclusion... with the number of 'green ads' on this site, I'd wager they hope 'not too many'.

jfuh

You're looking at all the possible additions yet you're ignoring that 5 gazillion megaton gorilla in the corner which is carbon dioxide.

huh?

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

UtahBill

am I missing something? he thanked you for this post, for referring to his posts as idiotic propaganda.....
I give up. gonna go find a dead horse to beat, might get somewhere with that....

__________________
Education is expensive, ignorance is costly.

Each generation should have more opportunities than the last, but not at the expense of the next.

Smoke[MaxX]

Quoted a snip; you admit that you're arguing from a position of ignorance? How can you argue in search of the truth when you have no idea which facts are correct or incorrect and what the data specifically means? If 99 scientists out of 100 put forth papers with 1 scientist dissenting claiming the other 99's ideas are "HYPE" does that automatically mean the one scientist is the correct one? There's a possibility that yes, he is the correct one. However, the only way for that to be possible is for him to prove the others wrong. In any case, what does this have to do with you? Feel free to pick your side. Why argue about something when you insist on taking a position of ignorance just to hide behind it when someone else questions your expertise on the matter? Read up on the subject from both sides, whether or not one is correct. See which one matches the facts and see which one follows the scientific method. Science is best done when it can be repeated by multiple sources. If you find a paper that has an experiment you might be able to replicate (in a simplified form) go for it. Until you truly understand the issues at hand, it is not your responsibility to argue the points.

Bodhisattva

...I don't know, but I thanked him back, just to be polite. I am done here friends!

__________________
"Only pompous idiots have a quotation as their signature" - Agnapostate