[Brenda]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Brenda Brenda:

Global warming doesn't exist.

But, as you demonstrated in the last thread, you can't even read a simple graph, so why should anyone take your pronouncement seriously.

you are going to try to insult me?

It said nowhere it was the global average temp, now did it? So I better ask, don't I? And I still don't buy it either. Everybody can draw a graph like that...

[sasquatch2]

kellerman

$1:

Oh I believe global warming to be real, I just don't know why it isn't seen as the cyclical weather pattern that usually befalls this planet every few dozen or so centuries. I kind of laugh at how Global Warming is talked about like some new phenomenon when the meteorological record clearly indicates that it isn't.

I mostly think the debate now is between two camps, one that believes it's mother nature's fault and one that believes it's man's fault. Where as I am in the camp of "who cares, it's happening so adapt". In all their research, why hasn't either side looked at the evidence that shows it's cyclical?

And that just places you solidly in the "right-wing, oil funded denier" camp. The self appointed arbiters of this matter have so decreed.

The so called "right-wing, oil funded denier" has looked at this, published this to the displeasure of the alarmists. Such conclusions incite the political leaders of the alarmist camps to deny research, tenure and employment to anyone who entertains these notions. The alarmist media prevents such views being released---indeed without the blogosphere and independent publishers such as SINGER and AVERY succeeded in getting...no knowledge of the truth would have ever surfaced.

The parallel to Oct 30, 1938 becomes ever firmer.

[Numure]

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/thc/

The theory. The none saline water from the Arctic Icecpas melting could disrupt the golf stream, at that making all of North America and Europe alot colder.

[sasquatch2]

Numure

$1:

The theory. The none saline water from the Arctic Icecpas melting could disrupt the golf stream, at that making all of North America and Europe alot colder.

Problem is Gorical dogma/theory and reality are vastly different.

If Green land was melting and it's not. In fact it has been slowly cooling since about 1941 despite the BS. There is noway hypothetical Greenland melting could ever produce a Jökulhlaups, causing a Heinrichs event.

It's you that doesn't know the science (I don't mean "the science".)

Indeed "The Inconvenient Truth" clips of Antarctic/Greenland breakup was actually a Jökulhlaups in the Andes of Argentina.

Say Jökulhlaups.

[kevlarman]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

kellerman

$1:

Oh I believe global warming to be real, I just don't know why it isn't seen as the cyclical weather pattern that usually befalls this planet every few dozen or so centuries. I kind of laugh at how Global Warming is talked about like some new phenomenon when the meteorological record clearly indicates that it isn't.

I mostly think the debate now is between two camps, one that believes it's mother nature's fault and one that believes it's man's fault. Where as I am in the camp of "who cares, it's happening so adapt". In all their research, why hasn't either side looked at the evidence that shows it's cyclical?

And that just places you solidly in the "right-wing, oil funded denier" camp. The self appointed arbiters of this matter have so decreed.

The so called "right-wing, oil funded denier" has looked at this, published this to the displeasure of the alarmists. Such conclusions incite the political leaders of the alarmist camps to deny research, tenure and employment to anyone who entertains these notions. The alarmist media prevents such views being released---indeed without the blogosphere and independent publishers such as SINGER and AVERY succeeded in getting...no knowledge of the truth would have ever surfaced.

The parallel to Oct 30, 1938 becomes ever firmer.

How so??? How am in the right-wing denier camp? I accept that global warming is real. VERY real. However, I'm not so quick as to put ALL the fault on man's lap before I see the all the real data for myself that pushes me past the "man's assisting Global Warming" to either "man's not at fault (which the data clearly shows that man had a hand in speeding this up") to the camp of "man's completely at fault". And to that end, there is ample evidence that shows that vast global warming and cooling trends are a predictable and cyclical phenomena with vast, meteorlogical (ice core samples, etc), geological, biological and other scientifically based evidence that shows that at best... all we as a species are guilty of is speeding up the cycle with our vast pollution-producing society.

I'm not in any camp except the "I'm smart enough to make up my own damn mind, just give me the facts and back off" camp.

[sasquatch2]

Despite your protests to the contrary the alarmists regard even doubt to be denial----only total, blind acceptance of the science is acceptable----anything else is treason. Welcome to the club. I don't make the rules I just play the game.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Not really. I started this thread so you should've been able to see where I was going.

But it is what it turned out to be...

Not really, I'm just getting started on having fun here.

See, the trap these poor folks have made for themselves is that by saying that AGW is the driving force in the climate then that means that every aspect of the climate must be affected by AGW.

They say we'll have stronger hurricanes because of AGW well, then that means that the winters have to be affected by AGW as well.

Logically, though, the winters should be warmer, not cooler with AGW. .

But to keep to their religious beliefs where AGW cannot be disproved by rationally observed phenomena then any unusual incident with the weather must be cause by AGW.

So unless AGW is pure hogwash, then the early freeze MUST be a symptom of AGW because, were it not, then that would lead to the conclusion that AGW is not having the global effect it is supposed to have and if it isn't affecting everything everywhere then it isn't true.

If this cooling trend goes on for thirty years, as did the last cooling trend, I kind of wonder how the AGW crowd will sustain their argument because since the 1990's their assumption is that the world MUST get warmer.

What happens to their precious assumptions when it doesn't?

Ther really is no trap.

You've demonstrated numerous times in the past that you are either unwilling or unable to grasp the fundamentals of climate change theory--a necessary precondition to arguing the science. And then, without even a basic understadning of the physics involved, you come on here with Samsquanch and your "bulletproof" logical findings and announce why it is that all of these thousands of scientists are wrong and you are right.

So global warming makes the earth hotter except when it makes it colder?

So no matter what happens with the weather or the climate it's the fault of AGW.

As I've said before, it must be nice to have a hypothesis that is proven by any and all evidence.

[BartSimpson]

Numure Numure:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/thc/

The theory. The none saline water from the Arctic Icecpas melting could disrupt the golf stream, at that making all of North America and Europe alot colder.

But we wouldn't get colder if the Gulf Stream shut down because global warming is supposed to make everything heat up.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Numure Numure:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/thc/

The theory. The none saline water from the Arctic Icecpas melting could disrupt the golf stream, at that making all of North America and Europe alot colder.

But we wouldn't get colder if the Gulf Stream shut down because global warming is supposed to make everything heat up.

Now you're just being stupid.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Not really. I started this thread so you should've been able to see where I was going.

But it is what it turned out to be...

Not really, I'm just getting started on having fun here.

See, the trap these poor folks have made for themselves is that by saying that AGW is the driving force in the climate then that means that every aspect of the climate must be affected by AGW.

They say we'll have stronger hurricanes because of AGW well, then that means that the winters have to be affected by AGW as well.

Logically, though, the winters should be warmer, not cooler with AGW. .

But to keep to their religious beliefs where AGW cannot be disproved by rationally observed phenomena then any unusual incident with the weather must be cause by AGW.

So unless AGW is pure hogwash, then the early freeze MUST be a symptom of AGW because, were it not, then that would lead to the conclusion that AGW is not having the global effect it is supposed to have and if it isn't affecting everything everywhere then it isn't true.

If this cooling trend goes on for thirty years, as did the last cooling trend, I kind of wonder how the AGW crowd will sustain their argument because since the 1990's their assumption is that the world MUST get warmer.

What happens to their precious assumptions when it doesn't?

Ther really is no trap.

You've demonstrated numerous times in the past that you are either unwilling or unable to grasp the fundamentals of climate change theory--a necessary precondition to arguing the science. And then, without even a basic understadning of the physics involved, you come on here with Samsquanch and your "bulletproof" logical findings and announce why it is that all of these thousands of scientists are wrong and you are right.

So global warming makes the earth hotter except when it makes it colder?

So no matter what happens with the weather or the climate it's the fault of AGW.

As I've said before, it must be nice to have a hypothesis that is proven by any and all evidence.

Well that's your opinion. Like Brenda's and Samsquanch's it's not founded on science--but that's OK. Everyone is entitled to thier opinions. I'm just going to cast my lot with the scientists, because when it comes to explaining nature, they tend to be right more than others.

[kevlarman]

The person who came up with the term, "Global Warming" should've thought ahead to the confusion his or her's label would bring the instant it was linked to distant global cooling by first heating up the globe. Now that person should've stuck with "climate change". Even though that in itself is fairly vague and non-specific.

And Sasquatch, I understand it's the game the alarmists play, I was just stating where I stand. But thanks for pointing out that isn't the rules you play by, at least there's hope for you yet

[Numure]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Numure Numure:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/thc/

The theory. The none saline water from the Arctic Icecpas melting could disrupt the golf stream, at that making all of North America and Europe alot colder.

But we wouldn't get colder if the Gulf Stream shut down because global warming is supposed to make everything heat up.

I know you're smarter then that Bart.

''Global Warming'' is melting the Icecaps, the none saline water dumped into the atlantic then ''could be'' disrupting the Golf Stream that is then affecting the climate of North America and Europe.

Anyways, just goes to show you it isnt as simple as saying its because of CO2 emissions. Our climate is so complicated and interlinked with different factors that no one can pretend to know what is really happening.

Always remember everything is still a theory right now. As no one can prove their theory to be the ''right'' one.

[sasquatch2]

Zipperfish wrote:

$1:

And then, without even a basic understadning of the physics involved, you come on here with Samsquanch and your "bulletproof" logical findings and announce why it is that all of these thousands of scientists are wrong and you are right.

You must be getting desperate----trotting out once again the mythical consensus.

[sasquatch2]

hurley_108

$1:

Now you're just being stupid.

You are the guy guy that thinks a Jökulhlaups is a jack rabbit with deer antlers.

I noticed you never addressed how Greenland could possibly cause a Heinrich event without a
Jökulhlaups. But that is just another inconvenient truth.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Numure Numure:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/thc/

The theory. The none saline water from the Arctic Icecpas melting could disrupt the golf stream, at that making all of North America and Europe alot colder.

But we wouldn't get colder if the Gulf Stream shut down because global warming is supposed to make everything heat up.

Now you're just being stupid.

Exactly. That's because AGW is stupid.