Wez
DA
The funny thing is you think typing poodle dick gets you over on someone. Should we just start cut and pasting insults? Rise above Lion, stop resorting to Ad Hominem, it's shows weakness.
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
The funny thing is you think typing poodle dick gets you over on someone. Should we just start cut and pasting insults? Rise above Lion, stop resorting to Ad Hominem, it's shows weakness.
Near the end of your suggested article --
This following image shows the last 800,000 years of temperature and forcing levels. Essentially, we have largely departed the climate forcing from the natural cycle.
Wez
DA
So you're back to rejecting AGW as a possibility and digging your heels in on rejection of what actual scientist are saying?
Wez
DA
Near the end of your suggested article --
This following image shows the last 800,000 years of temperature and forcing levels. Essentially, we have largely departed the climate forcing from the natural cycle.
That was quick. Tends to happen when an ideologue tries to be a scientist.
Presumptions are made. Some may eventually be proved correct.Near the end of your suggested article --
This following image shows the last 800,000 years of temperature and forcing levels. Essentially, we have largely departed the climate forcing from the natural cycle.
Im encouraged at your willingness to look at some climate perspective.
This scale on the left is beautiful, and shows a more representative slice of climate history. The scale on the right is where some educated, but unproven assumptions creep in.
At this point, I look at the left scale as reality, and the right, as unproven hypothesis.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Near the end of your suggested article --
This following image shows the last 800,000 years of temperature and forcing levels. Essentially, we have largely departed the climate forcing from the natural cycle.
Its interesting the graph tracks back to James Hansen's 2008 "Where should humanity aim for target CO2" article. The ~25X expansion of the X-axis to the right of the 0 point is eye catching. That's a fast oscillation.
I would not be surprised to get into the delorean, jet back 120,000 years, apply the same attention, and see a really radical swing at the top of that matterhorn.
We could also dial in 500,000 years back on the flux capacitor, and see a more homogenous period of climate fluctuation, sans human "forcings".
Wez
DA
I'm at work, haven't read it. Why would assumptions be needed for a time period of 1900 - 2000?
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Good question. Related to which is the bigger myth, AGW or the Enlightenment ideal of human rationality? Yeah we gotta go there at some point but the science is more fun. I think when we almost blinked out ~75,000 years ago there was a strong selective pressure to respond to risk at a very deep, reflexive and visceral level. We have to accommodate that now within increasingly global societies and it is not necessarily serving us well. But with Wez continuing to catch heat for his trip to Hawaii the moral high ground is temporarily secure. So no worries.
Getting over on someone? Get over yourself....
You post a condescending reply , that is factually wrong, I point it out, & respond with a condescending remark and you cry like a whining little child.
Man up Wez if you're gonna dish it out expect it back in spades.
When you climb out of the gutter, I'll join you.
You want to stay in the gutter...let's sling crap...
You worry about me getting one over on you and ignore the fact that climate is cyclical.
It's been warmer before and it's been colder before. Reply to that.
Yeah..so?Near the end of your suggested article --
This following image shows the last 800,000 years of temperature and forcing levels. Essentially, we have largely departed the climate forcing from the natural cycle.
Does that change the fact that climate is cyclical?
That it's been warmer before and colder before?
Apparently you disagree with the article for which you provided a link. Didn't you read it first?
Its a political site.
It takes what it wants and pretends to be skeptical, while toeing the company line.
Is there valid info?, yes. I have posted graphs from that site before.
What it fails to do is be skeptical of the political consensus. As a matter of fact, it devotes much of its energy to defending with dogmatic verve, the consensus argument against any real skepticism.
Wez
DA
I must have missed that part. Please help me out, where did you catch me posting something wrong? Please don't imply that I somehow argued the fact that Climate changes over time....why would anyone argue that and what would that have to do with a discussion of AGW?
A discussion of AGW, as has been stated countless times here before, is not about "does Climate change naturally over time". Everyone knows Climate changes over time, so that has never been in dispute.
So is the extent of your science argument that Climate changes naturally over time, so AGW must not be a thing?
You have a hard time with what has been posted previously.
I believe that the climate is changing. It always has.
I don't know that we, humans, can stop it from happening.
Do you think if we stop burning fossil fuels, kill all the live stock and 1/2 the human population that would stop the warming of the earth?
Wez
DA
Actually, it exists to dispel the political nonsense that we see from day to day, so you basically have it ass backwards.
Wez
DA
Probably not, but I'm not the one rejecting what our Scientists are telling us...you are.
Wez
DA
No Lion, defining the discussion and rejecting scientific data are two very different actions. One seeks to clarify what we are arguing about, the other attempts to place their knowledge of science above our experts.
No. I have it right.
You assume that the political influence only taints one side of an argument, as does "skeptical" science.
EG21 compared it to a counter equivelent of WUWT. I wouldnt say that.
I would have it in the religious dogma court. WUWT actually accepts some counter arguments for consideration.