[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Deniers to the end. "We deny ever having denied."

Then do you support this obvious bullshit:

$1:

Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

Essentially all of the increase of the past 250 years is man made?

Really?

I suppose it must be true since everyone knows what a stinking polluting pile of shit was the 1766 Hummer. Or maybe it was all that coal the Royal Navy was burning in 1766?

Give me a fucking break. Calling bullshit on such obvious bullshit is not 'denial' it's flat out common sense.

[Thanos]

The time period also covers the era of increased industrialization, the explosive growth of the steel industry (which uses huge amounts of coal), and massive amounts of deforestation in Europe and North America. And that's before using oil, diesel, and gasoline as the primary fuels even began. All of which lead to increased CO2 production and a huge reduction in nature's ability to absorb more of the gas out of the atmosphere.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's the problem with the BEST project. Yes it gathered known or at least revealed data and applied more consistent management to it, but no, it did not prove or even show that the warming they projected was human caused. Muller's full of crap when he says it does. His co-author on BEST, who incidentally was an alarmist turned skeptic, seems to think so.

Bart's original observation that consistency of glacial melt before the bulk of CO2 was added in the latter half of the 20th century remains valid as seeming evidence of long term natural caused warming rather than sudden burst of CO2 caused warming after 1950ish.

[raydan]

Number 1 worst argument of climate change deniers -
We can't really prove that we're having an effect on CO2 levels and climate change is a myth so let's continue polluting the air that we breath because, come on, what's the worst that can happen... and if we try to do something, then businesses will fail and we'll lose our jobs... and I'll have to drive an electric car.

Number 2 worst argument of climate change deniers -
Since other countries aren't doing anything about it, why should we?

[N_Fiddledog]

No one is saying there is no possibility of human caused warming. The argument has always been about how much, whether or not that's a worry, and what can be done about it even if it is.

I will suggest though that diverting money, environmental management and creative energy from dealing with actual pollution to supposedly prevent an imagined apocalypse caused by the gas we exhale, makes about as much sense as preparing for an alien invasion.

Unless the aliens are Islamic, of course.

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

Number 1 worst argument of climate change deniers -
We can't really prove that we're having an effect on CO2 levels and climate change is a myth so let's continue polluting the air that we breath because, come on, what's the worst that can happen... and if we try to do something, then businesses will fail and we'll lose our jobs... and I'll have to drive an electric car.

Number 2 worst argument of climate change deniers -
Since other countries aren't doing anything about it, why should we?

You're kind of missing the argument here.

Zipperfish ran out the BEST study and hung his hat on the assertion that man-made global warming started 250 years ago.

The industrial age is only about 150 to 165 years old.

So what's the assertion here? That 18th Century fireplaces were causing global warming? Maybe it's the occasional blacksmith forge that did it?

And my previous assertion remains that glaciers were melting about 20,000 years before the advent of the industrial age and they're still melting. To conclude that the last 150-250 years of human activity is overwhelmingly responsible for a process that we KNOW is around 20,000 years old is nonsensical in the extreme.

Seriously: Since man-made AGW couldn't possibly have existed prior to even 250 years ago then what phenomenon started the end of the last great ice age?

How could it have possibly occured without man-made carbon emissions?

[N_Fiddledog]

Yes. In fact we seem to keep forgetting the bulk of human CO2 emissions only occurred in the latter half of the 20th century.

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Yes. In fact we seem to keep forgetting the bulk of human CO2 emissions only occurred in the latter half of the 20th century.

Indeed. Yet the bulk of glacial recession occurred long before the advent of human civilization.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

$1:

Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

What's obviously wrong with the sum of these two sentences?

Nothing. They agree with other statements from other studies I've read. Independent verification is a cornerstone of science.

I guess the irony that someone bent on disproving AGW ends up confirming it because the science is sound is somehow lost in translation.

[BartSimpson]

The horseshit here is in the non-scientific assertion that 'essentially all' warming in the past 250 years is man-made but all of the warming prior to 1766 is therefore irrelevant.

That's about as 'scientific' as the Creationists arguing that the world is only as old as the Biblical account of Genesis says it is. Because that's what it says, right?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The horseshit here is in the non-scientific assertion that 'essentially all' warming in the past 250 years is man-made but all of the warming prior to 1766 is therefore irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. It's just not measurably influenced by man. The record of trace gasses in the atmosphere goes back hundreds of thousands of years, so 250 of those is a small part of the picture but a very relevant one.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That's about as 'scientific' as the Creationists arguing that the world is only as old as the Biblical account of Genesis says it is. Because that's what it says, right?

False equivalence. "Let there be light" might reference the Big Bang. We don't know.

[BartSimpson]

So in 1766 it was like flicking a switch and suddenly all of the warming that had naturally occured in 1775 was now automagically caused by man in the following calendar year?

[Zipperfish]

[BartSimpson]

Cute chart.

So what caused the warming noted in the red circles and what caused all of the temperature variations noted in the blue circle since man isn't the cause?

And since these variations existed before man-made influences then how is it logical to assert that 'essentially all' of the variations after 1766 are man-made?

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lying liar! Why must you lie?!?!? How much is Soros paying you, science demon-guy?!?!? What you need is a good double-dose of free market and some Vitamin-Church!



No! Zinc! Come back, zinc!