Who still takes global warming seriously?

Mothra wrote:

Ever notice how warmists routinely cite "weather" reports as "climate", yet when skeptics do the same they're quick to note that it's "weather" not "climate"?

Yes, but it's different as far as they're concerned.
LessFact says his use of ad hominem is justifiable, whereas mine isn't.
Truth is, alarmists work from a different rule book.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, but it's different as far as they're concerned.
LessFact says his use of ad hominem is justifiable, whereas mine isn't.
Truth is, alarmists work from a different rule book.

It's called politics

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
The same thing? What was that Teener? The same thing has changed climate through all of earth's history? What was that one thing, Teener?
Was it dinosaur farts? Was it CO2? Was it the brightness of the sun? Was it the repositioning of the continents? Was it changes in the earths orbit? Or tilt? Was is volcanoes? Was it alien geo-engineering? Was it cosmic rays?
Just the facts, ma'am. Tell us what one thing is changing the climate like it always have before?
You're a fuggin idiot.

Give'r a break. She doesn't know.

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
Ever notice how warmists routinely cite "weather" reports as "climate", yet when skeptics do the same they're quick to note that it's "weather" not "climate"?

Nope.

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
The same thing? What was that Teener? The same thing has changed climate through all of earth's history? What was that one thing, Teener?
Was it dinosaur farts? Was it CO2? Was it the brightness of the sun? Was it the repositioning of the continents? Was it changes in the earths orbit? Or tilt? Was is volcanoes? Was it alien geo-engineering? Was it cosmic rays?
Just the facts, ma'am. Tell us what one thing is changing the climate like it always have before?
You're a fuggin idiot.

You tell me what changed climate in the past. But I doubt you will for the simple fact that to do that is to admit that man may not be the cause now. After all, if you have to admit something did it in the past then it is harder to claim that it isn't the cause now.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Give'r a break. She doesn't know.

Oh I know. I know that if he tries to answer what caused it in the past then he would have to face the fact that it is the cause now. That man has little to do with it.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh I know. I know that if he tries to answer what caused it in the past then he would have to face the fact that it is the cause now. That man has little to do with it.

There is a new variable that was not present in the distant past. That is the burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels by mankind. Since this has never happened in the past, the past cannot give any evidence for the the results.

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
Ever notice how warmists routinely cite "weather" reports as "climate", yet when skeptics do the same they're quick to note that it's "weather" not "climate"?

You're too stupid to differentiate between weather and climate.

When they're talking about records being broken that started in 1895, they're not talking about weather, idiot.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Give'r a break. She doesn't know.

No breaks. I'd like for her to recognize her ignorance like an alcoholic hitting bottom.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
You tell me what changed climate in the past. But I doubt you will for the simple fact that to do that is to admit that man may not be the cause now. After all, if you have to admit something did it in the past then it is harder to claim that it isn't the cause now.

Fool, I did with my post.

Most of the things I listed have changed climate before. You figure out if aliens had anything to do with it.

This time is different, Valley Girl. Isotopes, sun's brilliance going down, nightime temps going up; all things point to Man.

Are you too stupid to do your own real research?

The name of the disease, chikungunya, means "that which bends" in an African language, and it describes the posture of its victims, bent over by severe joint pain.

Once a sporadic problem in Africa and Asia, this viral disease has been expanding its range since 2004, even spreading within Italy. And, with some help from global warming, New York City could be next, Laura Harrington, a medical entomologist at Cornell University warned on Tuesday here at Cornell.

Chikungunya causes severe joint pain, fever, rash and other symptoms that can last for months, even years, and in unusual cases, death. There is no vaccine and no treatment.[Poll: Do You Fear New Diseases?]

The virus on its own can't travel across continents or even between victims. It partners with two mosquito species that spread the virus among hosts when they suck blood. One of these insects, the Asian tiger mosquito, is already living in temperate regions, including the New York area.

The Asian tiger mosquito is believed to have arrived in the United States in the mid-1980s, possibly in tires, Harrington said. In a laboratory experiment, she found 80 percent of a strain of Asian tiger mosquitoes in the New York/New Jersey area were able to pick up the virus and transmit it in their saliva.

This is where climate change comes in. The mosquito benefits from warmer temperatures, since mild winters make it possible for its eggs to survive the winter, and more of these mosquitoes make it more likely that an infection brought in by a traveler could spread.

Already, cases of chikungunya carried by travelers have been documented in the United States.

-LiveScience

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a new variable that was not present in the distant past. That is the burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels by mankind. Since this has never happened in the past, the past cannot give any evidence for the the results.

Your new variable isn't that new. At one point all the carbon was in the air and then removed and stored as fossil fuel. What is happening is that we are returning it to the air.

So your claim that this has not happened in the past is wrong. We have had this level and higher in the past. Which means you can give evidence. Not to mention climate change including higher temperatures have happened in the past as well according to the evidence.

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Fool, I did with my post.
Most of the things I listed have changed climate before. You figure out if aliens had anything to do with it.
This time is different, Valley Girl. Isotopes, sun's brilliance going down, nightime temps going up; all things point to Man.
Are you too stupid to do your own real research?

Your posts are what besides your opinions? So far you have only proved your ability to ignore the inconvenient truths when necessary. So you listed some things that will not make them any truer, any more correct.
The claim that it points to man is based on your desires and has nothing to do with the facts. If you were really willing to do actual research rather than dig for something to bolster your beliefs then you would discover how wrong you have been.

I think global warming is not just about science and that it is not just a political issue. It is really a moral issue.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Your posts are what besides your opinions? So far you have only proved your ability to ignore the inconvenient truths when necessary. So you listed some things that will not make them any truer, any more correct.
The claim that it points to man is based on your desires and has nothing to do with the facts. If you were really willing to do actual research rather than dig for something to bolster your beliefs then you would discover how wrong you have been.

You never gave us your opinion or any facts as to that thing "that has always caused" climate change in the past.

You don't know, do you? There are several things that are known to have caused climate change in the past and several things that are thought to have changed it. You say there's one thing? What is it, Teener?

What do have to say about the evidence in the isotopes?

You keep talking about facts. If your case is strong enough, let's see those facts.

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You never gave us your opinion or any facts as to that thing "that has always caused" climate change in the past.
You don't know, do you? There are several things that are known to have caused climate change in the past and several things that are thought to have changed it. You say there's one thing? What is it, Teener?
What do have to say about the evidence in the isotopes?
You keep talking about facts. If your case is strong enough, let's see those facts.

Then what was I doing with those thousands of posts?

As for what caused climate change in the past they are only know about some of the causes. Which is part of the problem with claiming that man is the cause. After all, we do not really know exactly what caused it in the past and yet those like you are ignoring that in favor of opinions.

gcaveman1 wrote:

You never gave us your opinion or any facts as to that thing "that has always caused" climate change in the past.

Not mine to answer but:

It isn't up to me or anyone on my side of things to say what has always caused climate change in the past, but to merely point out that it has changed in the past and that is was due to something other than human activity. It is up to you guys to make the case that today's weather is largely an artifact of human activity.

I've pointed out many times now that the 0.7°C rise in temperature since 1850 doesn't support the climate sensitivity you guys claim for CO2. You've come up with all sorts of the dog ate my homework scenarios why it hasn't and none of those scenarios has any data that I've ever seen to back it up. It's all bullshit.

I can solve all this, just give some of your tax dollars to the al gore george bush obama carbon futures company in chicago and the mighty manbearpig will wave his majic wand and the earth will get cooler

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Your new variable isn't that new. At one point all the carbon was in the air and then removed and stored as fossil fuel. What is happening is that we are returning it to the air.
So your claim that this has not happened in the past is wrong. We have had this level and higher in the past. Which means you can give evidence. Not to mention climate change including higher temperatures have happened in the past as well according to the evidence.

We are returning in a few decades what took millennia after mellenia to lay down. What will be the result? Never has this much CO2 been released is such a short period.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
We are returning in a few decades what took millennia after mellenia to lay down. What will be the result? Never has this much CO2 been released is such a short period.

That's right it's up 40% since 1850 and the temperature is up 0.7°C. Spin that any way you want and you can't come up with the catastrophic disaster you guys keep predicting.