Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
He wasn't writing about your grammar and spelling, he was questioning your thought process.

Really? Did you by ant chance read the attachment? Can you tell me how that fits into the AGW theory?

Gaius Gracchuss wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh really? Well then please explain the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) I am very interested in your thoughts.

There ya go. Now that's a real bonehead denier argument.

The medieval warming period was accepted climatology long ago unfortunately it was based entirely on proxy temperature data from the Northern Hemisphere. More recent studies show that the MWP was not global in it's extent. You will find that on the denier websites they continue to beat that old horse, but if you look at their data they load it with Northern Hemisphere data skewing their results so that they can continue to claim the MWP was global.

budd wrote:

<quoted text>
Poor Gaius. First of all your spelling of "pear" and "plane" were correct. Your problem was usage. It would appear that you meant to use the words "peer" and " plain".
Now on to the substance of your views.
Most of us here are aware that global temps have indeed fluctuated in the past. The forces that caused those changes are not present in today's climate. What is present is a massive additional CO2 load in the atmosphere.
As for your Krakatoa argument, it is true that after major eruptions the Earth has experienced what is called a volcanic winter. The cooling is caused by volcanic ash and droplets of sulfuric acid increasing the Earths reflectivity. This reduces the amount of the sun's energy reaching the Earth, and thereby cooling it. This is hardly a refutation of AGW theory.
If you really want to join the chorus of boneheaded deniers here on Topix, I suggest you do what they do, go to the various global warming denier websites, then come back here and paste the stupid arguments into your comment. Winging it won't cut the mustard.

Oh thank you for your usage insight, and here all along it was my spelling.

you said, "The forces that caused those changes are not present in today's climate." So since you know what those "forces were could please inform us all?

You also said, "This reduces the amount of the sun's energy reaching the Earth, and thereby cooling it. This is hardly a refutation of AGW theory." Interesting but you know it does acts like CO2 supposedly does containing the earths heat. And CO2 according to the theory should be forming cloud cover which would act as H2SO4 in reflecting the suns rays. Some how seems a reasonable comparison.

As I have said time and again when a person I am talking to resorts to name calling invective and insult I am pretty sure that they know their argument is weak. Feel free to prove otherwise but you will need to work harder that what you have produced here.

Gaius Gracchuss wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? Did you by ant chance read the attachment? Can you tell me how that fits into the AGW theory?

Gaius, by "ant" chance did you notice that the data from your link came from the Northern Hemisphere?

BTW The more information you attempt to glean from any source owned by the Murdoch empire the dumber you get.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/foxs_misinfor...

Gaius Gracchuss wrote:

<quoted text>
You can always tell when a poster has a weak argument when they start off by pointing out another posters grammar or spelling. A rather Juvenal gotcha don't you think?
Actually the CO@ thing just does not fly. First off the computer models don't work (try them in reverse and see what you get). Next, global Temps have fluctuated greatly over the last 2000 years w/o and CO2 influence. Actually instead of warming, the earth appears to be slowly cooling. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

As Juvenal allegedly said, It is not easy to rise for men whose qualities are thwarted by poverty, so I attempted to teach you the abc of the human-induced climate change. It's the excess CO2, GG.

GG: Actually the CO@[sic] thing just does not fly.
ME: But the greenhouse effect is physics. You can listen to Prof Muller tell on the radio that he was shocked how well the CO2 curve matched the temperature climbing in in their BEST study.(He's a converted skeptic.)

GG: First off the computer models don't work (try them in reverse and see what you get).
ME: First off, which ones you are referring to? Second, how do you try them in reverse? Have you done it yourself? With or without brakes?

GG: Next, global Temps have fluctuated greatly over the last 2000 years w/o and[sic] CO2 influence.
ME: Bingo. Not so greatly as the news article you provided shows but the recent temperature climb is caused by man-made excess CO2.

GG: Actually instead of warming, the earth appears to be slowly cooling.
ME: Until the recent man-made excess CO2.

Gaius Gracchuss wrote:

<quoted text>
It is truly sad what they do not teach you in schools these days. Here try this:
http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/01...
http://www.varchive.org/ce/accept.htm
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/As...
http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/projects/proje...
If you should care for other examples of the scientific community being wrong I suggest you read a little history.

The first three were mostly bogus arguments but were all before modern scientific methodology.

The last is a shining example of how science is self correction.

What we see on the denier side is mostly bogus arguments that are without scientific merit. The driver of the denier mentality is mostly from vested interests and their political shills.

budd wrote:

<quoted text>
There ya go. Now that's a real bonehead denier argument.
The medieval warming period was accepted climatology long ago unfortunately it was based entirely on proxy temperature data from the Northern Hemisphere. More recent studies show that the MWP was not global in it's extent. You will find that on the denier websites they continue to beat that old horse, but if you look at their data they load it with Northern Hemisphere data skewing their results so that they can continue to claim the MWP was global.

Actually the tree ring studies used to demonstrate the supposed locality of the MWP, like much of of the AGW data appears to have been "adjusted" to produce the "correct" information. BTW you forgot the LIA.

Face facts the theory of AGW is as I said a politically driven theory that has little to do with science.

DumBozo wrote:

He wasn't writing about your grammar and spelling, he was questioning your thought process.

Singular?¿?¿

Gaius Gracchuss wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually the tree ring studies used to demonstrate the supposed locality of the MWP, like much of of the AGW data appears to have been "adjusted" to produce the "correct" information. BTW you forgot the LIA.
Face facts the theory of AGW is as I said a politically driven theory that has little to do with science.

Repeating stupidity, supposed to be some sort of "intelligent" proof, because you're SO OUTTA GAS.... LMAOROTFu~!

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
The first three were mostly bogus arguments but were all before modern scientific methodology.
The last is a shining example of how science is self correction.
What we see on the denier side is mostly bogus arguments that are without scientific merit. The driver of the denier mentality is mostly from vested interests and their political shills.

Exactly, but only self-correcting when opposing views are not delegated and blocked from debate which is the primary tactic of the AGW believers. The arguments against AGW are at least as sound as those in favor and yet the supporters of AGW are a bigoted against the opposing viewpoint as any totalitarian I have ever seen or heard of. Now just why do you think that is?

DumBozo wrote:

Since you do not understand science

Isn't that an assumption, grandpaw?

DumBozo wrote:

AGW is scientific and it is only political if you make it so.

That was done many years ago.

dudd wrote:

The medieval warming[sic] period was accepted climatology long ago unfortunately it was based entirely on proxy temperature data from the Northern[sic] Hemisphere[sic].

You have evidence to back that stupid claim, of course?

dudd wrote:

More recent studies show that the MWP was not global in it's extent.

Au contraire, "recent studies" evidence the probablility that it was global.

dudd wrote:

You will find that on the denier websites they continue to beat that old horse, but if you look at their data they load it with Northern[sic] Hemisphere[sic] data skewing their results so that they can continue to claim the MWP was global.

Which "denier websites" are you referring to?

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>As Juvenal allegedly said, It is not easy to rise for men whose qualities are thwarted by poverty, so I attempted to teach you the abc of the human-induced climate change. It's the excess CO2, GG.
GG: Actually the CO@[sic] thing just does not fly.
ME: But the greenhouse effect is physics. You can listen to Prof Muller tell on the radio that he was shocked how well the CO2 curve matched the temperature climbing in in their BEST study.(He's a converted skeptic.)
GG: First off the computer models don't work (try them in reverse and see what you get).
ME: First off, which ones you are referring to? Second, how do you try them in reverse? Have you done it yourself? With or without brakes?
GG: Next, global Temps have fluctuated greatly over the last 2000 years w/o and[sic] CO2 influence.
ME: Bingo. Not so greatly as the news article you provided shows but the recent temperature climb is caused by man-made excess CO2.
GG: Actually instead of warming, the earth appears to be slowly cooling.
ME: Until the recent man-made excess CO2.

"Prof Muller" a convert? Really? And his un-peer reviewed paper seem to be cherry picking his data if other reports are correct.

Oh definitely without breaks since breaks imply tampering with the data and the AGW crowd does that enough already.

You do need to account for the LIA and MWP in there that was just a "small" anomaly.

Heck you guys are the ones making up the data and suppressing the views of others not I

Con Comedy wrote:

<quoted text>Repeating stupidity, supposed to be some sort of "intelligent" proof, because you're SO OUTTA GAS.... LMAOROTFu~!

Tell me why you consider invective and insult a viable form of open debate. Such tactics are generally associated with bigots and brown shirts who seek to suppress their opponents by any means possible. Do you ascribe to that mentality as well as their tactics?

Gaius Gracchuss wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh thank you for your usage insight, and here all along it was my spelling.
you said, "The forces that caused those changes are not present in today's climate." So since you know what those "forces were could please inform us all?
You also said, "This reduces the amount of the sun's energy reaching the Earth, and thereby cooling it. This is hardly a refutation of AGW theory." Interesting but you know it does acts like CO2 supposedly does containing the earths heat. And CO2 according to the theory should be forming cloud cover which would act as H2SO4 in reflecting the suns rays. Some how seems a reasonable comparison.
As I have said time and again when a person I am talking to resorts to name calling invective and insult I am pretty sure that they know their argument is weak. Feel free to prove otherwise but you will need to work harder that what you have produced here.

Do you read your comments before you post them? This is just a mess. Nonetheless here is my response.

CO2 is transparent, volcanic ash and sulfuric acid droplets are not. They most certainly do not have the same reflective properties.

If you are interested in the forces that drive climate change, I suggest you begin with google. I am not going to do your homework for you.

As for the insults and invectives, they were only directed at you if you include yourself among the bonehead deniers. That is entirely up to you.

I noticed you dropped the subject of the MWP. Had enough?

Political putz....

First of all, just focus electing the next president Romney and that is all it is.

The name of Romney's VP can be disclosed before the convention because that will be next VP for USA and people, so that they know that

Romney people do not need Bush visits and his former associates around, but show the new dynamics, which will be many brand new people who don't dig Bush former policies, as Obama is running them. Stay clean from former Bush.

They don't need Cheney or Rove to make comments nor much involvement because it is only Obama doing former Bush policies, from debt building, taking jobs away, illegal immigration, to Afghanistan, etc. and more.

Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Palin, McCain, Coulter and rest of many and so on, as these many other people for the good future, should all be there for doing great efforts in electing Romney , beyond appearance in the Convention.

By the way, Bain is not Bane in the batman movie, just like bean is not equal to beam , as some people think, because Romney is the rising star, and the great man, doing good for the USA people.

That is exactly what the people of US need-- a great rising man, by electing utmostly Romney for 2012 = the new great man for the next president.

Gaius Gracchuss wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell me why you consider invective and insult a viable form of open debate. Such tactics are generally associated with bigots and brown shirts who seek to suppress their opponents by any means possible. Do you ascribe to that mentality as well as their tactics?

You must be new to "Con Comedy/Seattle Slew". He only ascribes to that mentality. Good luck in your search for a reasonable response from this troll.

budd wrote:

<quoted text>
Gaius, by "ant" chance did you notice that the data from your link came from the Northern Hemisphere?
BTW The more information you attempt to glean from any source owned by the Murdoch empire the dumber you get.
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/foxs_misinfor...

Once again if you disagree with the data you assume fraud when in fact if you only looked you would find that the scientists had no connection to the evil evil evil (is that enough yet) Murdoch.

Try posting an article that actually demonstrates that the data shown did not apply to both hemispheres. Or provide evidence that such war/cold cycles do not happen in both hemispheres. When you do then we can talk.

LMAOROTFu~! He's FAILING, and a failure fool....
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/09/fo...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/...