2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are in denial. Only natural factors can explain the cooling between 1940 and 1975 as well as the warming between 1900 and 1940. You made a foolish statement and everyone who reads it will know it. You don't have to admit it, it is clear for anyone on here to see. You made a an obvious false statement and you know it. I can't believe you have embarrassed yourself in this way. It is not like you.

You can't explain the rise in temps from 1900 -1940 and the cooling in temps between 1940 -1975 without natural causes.

I just said they ARE caused by natural causes. Are you totally thick? Which part of;

“Obviously, natural temperature cycles are superimposed on any CO2-induced warming. Obviously, since nobody CLAIMS that the only factor determining warming is CO2, this is just obtuse straw man “

do you not understand?

Obviously I do NOT NEED to explain how natural variations in temperature are caused without natural causes because neither I or anyone else CLAIMS this and for you to say otherwise is just a totally obtuse straw man.
Do you finally get that now?

This undercuts your whole claim of CO2 being the driving factor in global warming.

the occasional temporary natural temperature increase or man made warming superimposed on natural temperature variation? What relevance has one got to do with the other?
In what way does the mere existence of natural temperature fluctuations with natural causes logically exclude the possibility of there also being man made influences on temperature? How are the two logically mutually exclusive? Where is the contradiction of there simultaneously existing BOTH man made influences on global temperature change AND natural influences on global temperature change?

-your refusal to answer any of the above questions proves you know you are wrong.

Eldar also posted a link that questions your whole claim that 2014 was really the warmest year considering the margin of error and the percentage of probability of that margin of error.

Questions it with what evidence? It is clearly just all hysterical hearsay with no evidence given to back up a single one of these hysterical assertions and was obviously not made by a climate scientist who would know something about it. Strange that all the actual climate scientists are saying a completely different set of messages from that which that link says they are saying -err, correction, not strange; it just means the link is all lies. How about, instead of just hearsay and lies, a link that shows what the climate scientists that have analyzed the temperature measurements are ACTUALLY saying they discovered?

Originally posted by humy

You can't explain the rise in temps from 1900 -1940 and the cooling in temps between 1940 -1975 [b]without natural causes.

I just said they ARE caused by natural causes. Are you totally thick? Which part of;

“Obviously, natural temperature cycles are superimposed on any CO2-induced warming. Obviously, since nobody CLAIMS[ ...[text shortened]... scientists that have analyzed the temperature measurements are ACTUALLY saying they discovered?

You don't know what you are talking about. I just proved a 40 year warming period can have nothing to do with man made causes. How warm the earth was last year doesn't prove a darn thing. Heck, how warm it has been in the last 4 decades is not proof of anything substantial.

Until we have a reasonable conversation about these natural causes and what they are you are just spewing a lot of feeble theories. How predictable of you to not want to talk about those specific natural causes. It is more important for you to attempt to unfairly exclude these things than have a real debate about the causes of these warming and cooling periods. I know you want to leave it with "natural causes" so you won't have to have a truly intelligent debate on this, but it only shows you are biased to the point that you are willing to mislead people away from undeniable relevance. I won't allow you to get away with it that easily though.

What are those specific natural causes?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You don't know what you are talking about. I just proved a 40 year warming period can have nothing to do with man made causes. How warm the earth was last year doesn't prove a darn thing. Heck, how warm it has been in the last 4 decades is not proof of anything substantial.

Until we have a reasonable conversation about these natural causes and what th ...[text shortened]... n't allow you to get away with it that easily though.

What are those specific natural causes?

a 40 year warming period can have nothing to do with man made causes

THAT is what I just said -and there still can be man made warming -the two not being mutually exclusive.
Nobody CLAIMS that you cannot possibly have a temperature change not involving man made causes; get it now?
Please stop being obtuse with this moronic perpetual straw man.

How warm the earth was last year doesn't prove a darn thing.

It does it cannot be accounted for by purely natural causes. Since there are no natural causes that could account for the resent warming, this proves it had to be man made.


The fact that you refuse to answer my previous questions demonstrates you know you are wrong.

Originally posted by humy

a 40 year warming period can have nothing to do with man made causes

THAT is what I just said -and there still can be man made warming -the two not being mutually exclusive.
Nobody [b]CLAIMS that you cannot possibly have a temperature change not involving man made causes; get it now?
Please stop being obtuse with this moronic perpetu ...[text shortened]...

The fact that you refuse to answer my previous questions demonstrates you know you are wrong.[/b]

misprint:

"It does it cannot..."

should have been;

"It does if it cannot..."

Originally posted by humy

a 40 year warming period can have nothing to do with man made causes

THAT is what I just said -and there still can be man made warming -the two not being mutually exclusive.
Nobody [b]CLAIMS that you cannot possibly have a temperature change not involving man made causes; get it now?
Please stop being obtuse with this moronic perpetu ...[text shortened]...

The fact that you refuse to answer my previous questions demonstrates you know you are wrong.[/b]

I don't know what question you are talking about. You have not answered my question of the specific natural causes. You don't want to talk about that.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I don't know what question you are talking about. You have not answered my question of the specific natural causes. You don't want to talk about that.

I don't know what question you are talking about.

The last one but ANY one of my many questions which you refuse to answer. Try:

“In what way does the mere existence of natural temperature fluctuations with natural causes logically exclude the possibility of there also being man made influences on temperature? How are the two logically mutually exclusive? Where is the contradiction of there simultaneously existing BOTH man made influences on global temperature change AND natural influences on global temperature change?
“

You have not answered my question

You mean the totally irrelevant question of:

What are those specific natural causes?

a totally irrelevant question unless you deny natural causes but some of the known ones are:

El Niño

Volcanic eruptions (via SO2 emissions and dust in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight)

Solar activity (only a relatively small influence as far as I am aware unless I have been misinformed )

I am sure there are several other known natural causes but cannot think of them from the top of my head right now so, if you want to know all of them, just look them up for yourself.

So what? What is your point? -answer; since nobody including I denies natural causes, none.

Climate scientists have taken into account all the above natural causes plus all the ones I didn't list above and calculated that they cannot explain the extent of the recent warming thus proving much of it must have been from man made causes.



So, going back on topic; now I have answered your question irrelevant as it is, will you answer any of my questions?
Or don't you want to talk about it?

Originally posted by humy

I don't know what question you are talking about.

The last one but ANY one of my many questions which you refuse to answer. Try:

“In what way does the mere existence of natural temperature fluctuations with natural causes logically exclude the possibility of there also being man made influences on temperature? How are the two logically ...[text shortened]... irrelevant as it is, will you answer any of my questions?
Or don't you want to talk about it?

Humy 1 metal brain 0, gg.

Originally posted by humy

I don't know what question you are talking about.

The last one but ANY one of my many questions which you refuse to answer. Try:

“In what way does the mere existence of natural temperature fluctuations with natural causes logically exclude the possibility of there also being man made influences on temperature? How are the two logically ...[text shortened]... irrelevant as it is, will you answer any of my questions?
Or don't you want to talk about it?

You have me confused with someone else. I have NEVER claimed man was not a factor in global warming....NEVER! That answers all of your ridiculous questions.

You still are not being specific. What caused the warming between 1900-1940? What caused the cooling between 1940 - 1975? Don't merely throw me a bunch of possibilities without the specific cause to each. That is not science. You are clearly afraid to be specific. Stop being evasive.

Perhaps you simply don't know and cannot admit your ignorance for fear you will lose face.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Humy 1 metal brain 0, gg.

Are you really that stupid?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have me confused with someone else. I have NEVER claimed man was not a factor in global warming....NEVER! That answers all of your ridiculous questions.

You still are not being specific. What caused the warming between 1900-1940? What caused the cooling between 1940 - 1975? Don't merely throw me a bunch of possibilities without the specific cause ...[text shortened]... e.

Perhaps you simply don't know and cannot admit your ignorance for fear you will lose face.

I have NEVER claimed man was not a factor in global warming....NEVER!

You repeatedly and clearly implied again and again that examples in fluctuations in temperature from natural causes is somehow evidence that there is no man made global warming. You did this by repeatedly giving examples of temperature fluctuations from natural causes exactly as if that means there cannot be man made global warming. For example, you said as an 'argument' against man made causes of global warming:

“Only natural factors can explain the cooling between 1940 and 1975 as well as the warming between 1900 and 1940. “

which is clearly irrelevant unless you are implying that natural causes of the above temperature fluctuations prove that there cannot be man made warming.

You also previously said the sweeping generalization: “Climate change is natural. “ despite the fact that it isn't always all natural.

Clearly then, you were effectively claiming that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, man is not a factor in global warming.

You still are not being specific. What caused the warming between 1900-1940? What caused the cooling between 1940 - 1975?

Since I am not a climate scientist, unlike the climate scientists that know all about it, I wouldn't know. If you really want to know, look it up yourself. I will not do this for you because I don't want to waste my time going off-topic.

But, much more to the point:

Since nobody CLIAMS that the causes of such temperature fluctuations have no natural causes, why is this relevant?
Again, you are implying (effectively claiming ) merely by bringing this irrelevancy exactly as if it was relevant, that such temperature fluctuations as the above having natural causes is somehow evidence that there is no man made causes of global warming.
If you deny this, then why bring it up at all? What is your point if these particular temperature fluctuations having natural causes is neither evidence for or against man made warming i.e. has nothing to do with man made warming?

Lets say hypothetically and just for the sake of argument, the particular two above temperature fluctuations were caused by fluctuations in the frequency of volcano eruptions (one of the known causes of similar temperature changes but not necessarily the cause of these two ) : so what? What would that have to do with man made global warming? How would it make any difference to the evidence for man made global warming if the two fluctuations were not caused by changes in fluctuations in the frequency of volcano eruptions but, say, El Nino events (or lack of ) ?
(Answer, none. It is irrelevant )

Perhaps you simply don't know

Unlike the climate scientists that know one hell more about it than you or I, I don't know (and never CLAIMED I did ) which natural cause is the natural cause. I 'admit' this -why shouldn't I? (It is like 'admitting' I don't know the specific evidence for the Earth's core being hot -so the core of the Earth is not hot? ) : How is there being natural causes evidence that there cannot be man made warming? It is the climate scientists that have the evidence, not I. If you really want this evidence, just look it up yourself. I will not waste my time looking it up such irrelevancy for you.

I know you just said "I have NEVER claimed man was not a factor in global warming" But; Please clarify your stance:

IS man a factor in global warming? Yes or No?

If Yes, we are now in agreement. If you answer No, by now answering No, you are now claiming what you say you never claimed before.

Originally posted by humy

I have NEVER claimed man was not a factor in global warming....NEVER!

You repeatedly and clearly implied again and again that examples in fluctuations in temperature from natural causes is somehow evidence that there is no man made global warming. You did this by repeatedly giving examples of temperature fluctuations from natural causes [ ...[text shortened]... you answer No, by now answering No, you are now claiming what you say you never claimed before.

"You repeatedly and clearly implied again and again that examples in fluctuations in temperature from natural causes is somehow evidence that there is no man made global warming."

No, I did not do that at all. You are just making baseless assumptions because of a flaw in your reasoning. What I have been saying all along is that one year doesn't mean squat! I have even said 4 decades doesn't mean much because history shows that. Natural causes have a big impact and that is a fact. If you cannot rule out natural factors you don't have a point and you clearly cannot do that. If you could you would be able to give me the specific natural cause(s) for the warming from 1900-1940. Because you cannot your opinion has no credibility. Sure climate scientists know more than you, but that doesn't mean they are not mostly biased and omit information the challenges their conclusions that may be motivated by funding interests.

Do us all a favor and just admit you don't know what you are talking about and have a leap in faith in scientists that ultimately look after their own interests despite ethics.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"You repeatedly and clearly implied again and again that examples in fluctuations in temperature from natural causes is somehow evidence that there is no man made global warming."

No, I did not do that at all. You are just making baseless assumptions because of a flaw in your reasoning. What I have been saying all along is that one year doesn't mean s ...[text shortened]... ave a leap in faith in scientists that ultimately look after their own interests despite ethics.

If you find a baby riddled with bullet holes, can you rule out natural causes?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"You repeatedly and clearly implied again and again that examples in fluctuations in temperature from natural causes is somehow evidence that there is no man made global warming."

No, I did not do that at all. You are just making baseless assumptions because of a flaw in your reasoning. What I have been saying all along is that one year doesn't mean s ...[text shortened]... ave a leap in faith in scientists that ultimately look after their own interests despite ethics.

Natural causes have a big impact and that is a fact.

Neither I nor anyone else including climate scientists CLIAMS that natural causes don't have a “big impact”.

If you cannot rule out natural factors you don't have a point

rule out natural factors for the most recent warming? -I don't have to because that has already been done by the climate scientists. See OP link.

If [b]you[/i] could you would be able to give me the specific natural cause(s) for ...

Why me? I am not a climate scientist thus I am not expected to nor have to. If you really want to know the natural causes, ask the climate scientists, not me. They are the ones that know what they are talking about.

Because you cannot your opinion has no credibility.

I cannot explain the causes of solar cycles because I am not a scientist that is an expert in solar activity. So, according to your above logic, my 'opinion' that the sun goes through solar cycles because some people who know a lot more about it than I do say it does, has “no credibility”. A similar argument can be made for each and every science I am not an expert in. Well, I guess the only science that says any truth is the one I just happen to know about 😕 That makes no sense.

Can YOU explain the warming from 1900-1940? No? Well, according to your own logic, your opinion has no credibility.
So your opinion that against the evidence for man made global warming has no credibility.

Sure climate scientists know more than you

AND YOU

but that doesn't mean they are not mostly biased and omit information the challenges their conclusions that may be motivated by funding interests.

Critical question: is there evidence of man made warming that has passed through peer review from scientists including from scientists that have no financial gain from observing man made climate change? Answer, Yes. Proof is proof regardless of the motive of those who find it so any “funding interests” from those that observe proof doesn't in anyway discredit that proof. It would have to be an absurd totally unsustainable vast mass worldwide conspiracy to fake all that evidence and proof and stop millions of scientists from trying to become famous for being the first one to spill the beans -just like with the absurdity of the fantasy of a mass covering up the 'fake' moon landings.

You still haven’t answers my question:

IS there man made global warming? Yes or No?

I have answered all your questions; You haven't answered even this one. I guess you don't want to talk about it.

Originally posted by humy

Natural causes have a big impact and that is a fact.

Neither I nor anyone else including climate scientists CLIAMS that natural causes don't have a “big impact”.

If you cannot rule out natural factors you don't have a point

rule out natural factors for the most recent warming? -I don't have to because that has alr ...[text shortened]... all your questions; You haven't answered even this one. I guess you don't want to talk about it.

"rule out natural factors for the most recent warming?"

There you go again. You know full well I was not talking about the most recent warming period. This proves how dishonest and evasive you are. This is what people do when they can't debate on that facts and it is what you are doing. You are a cad!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you find a baby riddled with bullet holes, can you rule out natural causes?

If he had motive to say no, his argument would go along the same lines i.e. something like:

There are many examples of babies that have died of natural causes in the past so, no, you cannot rule out natural causes. Anyone who cannot explain every natural cause of past baby deaths obviously cannot possible know what they are talking about when they say they can rule out natural causes of this resent death. How do you know there is some unknown natural cause for this baby's death when you cannot even list specifically each and every natural cause for each and every baby death in the past? Unless you can, your opinion has no credibility. The claimed 'evidence' is biased because the people who say they observed this so-called 'evidence' have funding interests thus this discredits any such so-called 'evidence' they report.