zappaisgod said:

Anybody who tells you it is settled is a liar or a fool.

---

zappaisgod said:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/05/Happy-18th-Birthday-No-Global-Warming

No warming for 18 years

---

Quote:

    Nearly 40 different excuses for the pause have been advanced, including Chinese economic growth that supposedly pushed cooling sulfate particles into the air, the removal of ozone-eating chemicals, an excess of volcanic emissions, and a slowdown in magnetic activity in the sun.

    The favorite explanation earlier this year was that strong trade winds in the Pacific Ocean had been taking warmth from the air and sequestering it in the ocean. This was based on a few sketchy observations, suggesting a very tiny change in water temperature—a few hundredths of a degree—at depths of up to 200 meters.

---

NotTheDevil said:

zappaisgod said:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/05/Happy-18th-Birthday-No-Global-Warming

No warming for 18 years

---

Quote:

    Nearly 40 different excuses for the pause have been advanced, including Chinese economic growth that supposedly pushed cooling sulfate particles into the air, the removal of ozone-eating chemicals, an excess of volcanic emissions, and a slowdown in magnetic activity in the sun.

    The favorite explanation earlier this year was that strong trade winds in the Pacific Ocean had been taking warmth from the air and sequestering it in the ocean. This was based on a few sketchy observations, suggesting a very tiny change in water temperature—a few hundredths of a degree—at depths of up to 200 meters.

---

Those are all legitimate "excuses". The ocean is a massive heat sink, and changing it's (average) temperature even slightly takes a massive amount of energy. Eventually mitigating factors will cease their mitigating. BTW, in geology, 20 years is an extremely insignificant amount of time.

---

NotTheDevil said:

zappaisgod said:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/05/Happy-18th-Birthday-No-Global-Warming

No warming for 18 years

---

Quote:

    Nearly 40 different excuses for the pause have been advanced, including Chinese economic growth that supposedly pushed cooling sulfate particles into the air, the removal of ozone-eating chemicals, an excess of volcanic emissions, and a slowdown in magnetic activity in the sun.

    The favorite explanation earlier this year was that strong trade winds in the Pacific Ocean had been taking warmth from the air and sequestering it in the ocean. This was based on a few sketchy observations, suggesting a very tiny change in water temperature—a few hundredths of a degree—at depths of up to 200 meters.

---

Those are all legitimate "excuses". The ocean is a massive heat sink, and changing it's (average) temperature even slightly takes a massive amount of energy. Eventually mitigating factors will cease their mitigating. BTW, in geology, 20 years is an extremely insignificant amount of time.

---

Ellis Dee said:

I wonder why people let themselves get beheaded by Muslim or Christian inquisitors. If I were faced with an inquisition I would at least convincingly fake capitulation and conversion to the preferred religious sect. As far as I'm concerned behreaded "martyrs" are nothing but darwin award winners. If they are too stupid to renounce their religion maybe they don't need to remain in the genepool. Can you imagine being killed over something as trivial as religion? Come on? Really? lol

---

zappaisgod said:

NotTheDevil said:

zappaisgod said:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/05/Happy-18th-Birthday-No-Global-Warming

No warming for 18 years

---

Quote:

    Nearly 40 different excuses for the pause have been advanced, including Chinese economic growth that supposedly pushed cooling sulfate particles into the air, the removal of ozone-eating chemicals, an excess of volcanic emissions, and a slowdown in magnetic activity in the sun.

    The favorite explanation earlier this year was that strong trade winds in the Pacific Ocean had been taking warmth from the air and sequestering it in the ocean. This was based on a few sketchy observations, suggesting a very tiny change in water temperature—a few hundredths of a degree—at depths of up to 200 meters.

---

Those are all legitimate "excuses". The ocean is a massive heat sink, and changing it's (average) temperature even slightly takes a massive amount of energy. Eventually mitigating factors will cease their mitigating. BTW, in geology, 20 years is an extremely insignificant amount of time.

---

Fact not in evidence.  One could just as easily have posited that the rise in temperature that ended almost two decades ago was caused by "mitigating" factors.  Here is a fact that is firmly in evidence, though.  The computer models they are deriving all of this from aren't worth a shit.  Do you know what they call a scientific theory in which the predictions don't work out but the clingers cling?  Religion.  The sine qua non of science is predictability.  Their predictions have been false.  Just like they were in the seventies when we were warned about the coming ice age

Absolutely nothing is settled except the politics.

---

NotTheDevil said:

Prisoner#1 said:

and over millions of years geologists have logged 'extreme' changes in climate, highs and lows

---

Which shows that the climate can indeed change, and if it can change then it's a good bet that humans are at least capable of changing it. We may be causing or accelerating a high, or perhaps even preventing a low, or not effecting it at all but these lack enough evidence. All the evidence that there is points that global average temperature may be rising and if it is it's probably due to human activity actively releasing sequestered carbon.

---

zappaisgod said:

Of course the climate changes.  It did so for billions of years before we even appeared.  Or do you think the Earth is 6 thousand years old and fossils were planted?

---

Prisoner#1 said:

NotTheDevil said:

Prisoner#1 said:

and over millions of years geologists have logged 'extreme' changes in climate, highs and lows

---

Which shows that the climate can indeed change, and if it can change then it's a good bet that humans are at least capable of changing it. We may be causing or accelerating a high, or perhaps even preventing a low, or not effecting it at all but these lack enough evidence. All the evidence that there is points that global average temperature may be rising and if it is it's probably due to human activity actively releasing sequestered carbon.

---

evidence?

you stated there's a lack evidence and then say the evidence suggest that
man has changed it... yep, that's how the IPCC works too. who changed the
climate before man appeared?

---

NotTheDevil said:

Prisoner#1 said:

NotTheDevil said:

Prisoner#1 said:

and over millions of years geologists have logged 'extreme' changes in climate, highs and lows

---

Which shows that the climate can indeed change, and if it can change then it's a good bet that humans are at least capable of changing it. We may be causing or accelerating a high, or perhaps even preventing a low, or not effecting it at all but these lack enough evidence. All the evidence that there is points that global average temperature may be rising and if it is it's probably due to human activity actively releasing sequestered carbon.

---

evidence?

you stated there's a lack evidence and then say the evidence suggest that
man has changed it... yep, that's how the IPCC works too. who changed the
climate before man appeared?

---

It changed itself, obviously. But with obvious and measurable phenomena, such as; volcanic ash, increase in greenhouse gasses often (but not always) due to volcanic activity, decreases in greenhouse gasses, and of course changes in the type of dominant life on earth (co2 producers vs sequestrates). This time the only obvious change is the increase in greenhouse gasses, which is caused by humans.

I stated that there is a lack of evidence as to which cycle the earth would currently be in and whether or not humans are exacerbating it, reducing it, or not effecting it. But there is evidence that temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations are changing. Which points to human-caused climate change.

---

Quote:

Andrew Montford, the author of the briefing note, said: “It has now been shown beyond doubt that the claims of a 97% consensus on climate change are at best misleading, perhaps grossly so, and possibly deliberately so. It’s high time policymakers stopped citing this appalling study.”

---

luvdemshrooms said:

How disingenuous of you. The 97% nonsense has been debunked multiple times.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf

Quote:

Andrew Montford, the author of the briefing note, said: “It has now been shown beyond doubt that the claims of a 97% consensus on climate change are at best misleading, perhaps grossly so, and possibly deliberately so. It’s high time policymakers stopped citing this appalling study.”

---

---

Quote:

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

---

Consensus ≠ 75

luvdemshrooms said:

Your 97% has been debunked.

---