04 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudge97% seems unrealistic. When they explain the warming period of 1900-1940 and the primary cause of that I think we can have a better picture of the influence of natural causes. Nobody here wants to have an honest discussion about that. Someone on here even had the stupidity to point out that climate change can cause mass extinctions. That is very true, the stupid part is that they were natural causes! All he really does by pointing that out is to bolster my case. It certainly was not man that caused it. Some people think that volcanoes caused the dinosaur mass extinction. It is doubtful that man could cause a mass extinction like that from mere carbon release. Natural causes are far worse as history shows. I'm not saying man is not having an impact on climate, I'm just saying many are underestimating the natural causes. There is no way that 97% is a fair estimate. They conveniently omit the 1900-1940 period and never speak of it. It is an obvious bias and it stinks. If they want to state an estimate right at the bottom of the cooling period after 1940 they should do the same from 1900-1940. So should you and everyone else on here. Telling me you are not a climate scientist and telling me to ask them is not reasonable. I get some of my information from a climate scientist. I have been all along. That is why I am so good at this. Humy didn't have a clue. Little did he know I was doing what he was suggesting I do long before he suggested it. Now it will be obvious to him that he simply does not like the views of the climate scientist I have been getting my information from. It is not that my source of information is not well qualified to have an opinion on the matter. Humy just doesn't like that qualified opinion. Neither do you.
Actually the peak of the probability distribution [bell curve] of the amount of warming we are responsible for
is about 110% of observed warming.
The reason being that the net effect of the natural variation has been slightly negative, offsetting some
of the warming we have caused.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou're a delusional idiot and I wasn't talking to you.
97% seems unrealistic. When they explain the warming period of 1900-1940 and the primary cause of that I think we can have a better picture of the influence of natural causes. Nobody here wants to have an honest discussion about that. Someone on here even had the stupidity to point out that climate change can cause mass extinctions. That is very true, th ...[text shortened]... to have an opinion on the matter. Humy just doesn't like that qualified opinion. Neither do you.
I was talking to the sane people around here and pointing them to an interesting article written by a climate scientist,
one of the 97% who form the consensus that global warming is happening and caused by us**, because I know you
are an ignorant moron who cannot be reasoned with.
** http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainDo you know how to say 'yes' or 'no' when asked a direct question?
Do you not know the difference between modern aircraft and old planes made in the 50s?
If there is a modern aircraft that people were killed on because of a lightning strike I am willing to look at it.
And what purpose would taking a look at it serve? Are you confused about what is under discussion?
It would not contradict any of my statements, but I would like to know if it happened. Do you have an example you have not presented here yet?
No, I too do not know how many planes crash due to lightening strikes. But all that does is prove his point.
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou replied to my post. Apparently you are the delusional idiot. Don't reply to my post next time. Duh!
You're a delusional idiot and I wasn't talking to you.
I was talking to the sane people around here and pointing them to an interesting article written by a climate scientist,
one of the 97% who form the consensus that global warming is happening and caused by us**, because I know you
are an ignorant moron who cannot be reasoned with.
** http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, I saw that a lot of old aircraft made in the 50s and are not modern aircraft like those used on 911 were not made to withstand lightning strikes and went down. Like I said from the beginning, if a modern aircraft crashed because of a lightning strike I am unaware of it. Since you cannot site a single example of a modern aircraft crashing because of a lightning strike I am still unaware of it and so are you. 🙄
Do you know how to say 'yes' or 'no' when asked a direct question?
[b]If there is a modern aircraft that people were killed on because of a lightning strike I am willing to look at it.
And what purpose would taking a look at it serve? Are you confused about what is under discussion?
It would not contradict any of my statements, but I would l ...[text shortened]... not know how many planes crash due to lightening strikes. But all that does is prove his point.
08 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyYou didn't even read it all, if any. I can tell. Either that or you cannot dispute any of his statements with facts so you resort to your childish name calling.
In every profession you will get some nut that goes against the basic principles of the profession and science is no exception so you make no point here.
This is typical of you. First you point to climate scientists as knowing more than those that aren't and say I should ask a climate scientist. Then you insult the climate scientist that disagrees with your position. I knew you would though. You are also predictable. You can't challenge Singer with facts so you insult him like a childish sore loser.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyhttps://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm
In every profession you will get some nut that goes against the basic principles of the profession and science is no exception so you make no point here.
Point by point rebuttal of the linked article.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Fred_Singer_art22.htm
09 Feb 15
Originally posted by humySingers statements are from 1996 and were true at that time. Some things have changed since then, but most of what Singer stated is still correct. He is not misinforming at all. If he is lying about the data prove it, but do it with a better source of info than the always biased skeptical science website.
That is a lie. I can.
See googlefudge the two links just in his last post above for those scientific facts and then come back to us.
If you can find a more recent interview with Singer I would be pleased to see it. I could not find one personally. It would be nice to see Singer on the news to debate one of your data falsifying climate scientists like Hansen or another overly zealous quack. Naomi Klein relies on him for a lot of her info. She is another idiot that makes statements like "capitalism will kill life on earth" and nonsense like that.
Stop pointing to web links like skeptical science which are consistently misleading. Show a better source of info. Skeptical science could provide links to confirm their claims but don't. There is a reason for that. It is bunk!
09 Feb 15
Skepical science says climate models are reliable. Singer says they don't agree because climate scientists can't agree on certain predictions so all climate models are different.
Lets start there. If the different climate models agree with each other show me they do if you can.
09 Feb 15
14 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
Skepical science says climate models are reliable. Singer says they don't agree because climate scientists can't agree on certain predictions so all climate models are different.
Lets start there. If the different climate models agree with each other show me they do if you can.
because climate scientists can't agree on certain predictions
-a long term global warming trend generally NOT being one of them thus this is irrelevant.
If the different climate models agree with each other
“agree” with what? They ALL agree that there will be a significant long term global warming trend (I use the word “significant” here to mean enough to cause measurably greater frequency of severe weather and/or measurable sea level rise great enough to threaten coastal areas ). They disagree with the more trivial details such as by exactly how much warming and exactly what effect this will have on local climates as opposed to the global climate. But, since differences in those trivial details isn't logically an indicator of their reliability of their prediction of a significant long term global warming trend which they ALL predict, this is completely irrelevant.
show me they do if you can.
We have already shown you evidence that they all agree that there will be a significant long term global warming trend. If you deny this, show us a model that takes into account CO2-induced warming, which very basic known physics says MUST happen, that predicts NO significant long term global warming trend....
But, if you are asking here for me to show that they all agree on every detail including exactly how much warming and exactly what effect this will have on local climates, since neither I nor anyone else CLAIMS nor, obviously, believes that they all agree on these more trivial details, this is just an obtuse question which you already know the irrelevant answer to -they don't agree with the more trivial predictions, which, of course, doesn't change the fact in the slightest that they all agree that there is a long term global warming trend thus this is completely IRRELEVANT.
Different climate models may, if so applied, predict slightly different weather we will have this summer. So they are all wrong in predicting a general increase in temperature as summer approaches? So they are all totally unreliable thus it is just as likely that temperatures will drop as it would rise as summer approaches and all just because they cannot agree on exactly how much temperature rise or exactly where and when it will rain?
09 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainWe have already shown you the climate data; stop pretending we haven't.
Singers statements are from 1996 and were true at that time. Some things have changed since then, but most of what Singer stated is still correct. He is not misinforming at all. If he is lying about the data prove it, but do it with a better source of info than the always biased skeptical science website.
If you can find a more recent interview with ...[text shortened]... e could provide links to confirm their claims but don't. There is a reason for that. It is bunk!
Have you even bothered to read the two links?