Re: Mostly Americans - The Willfully Ignorant Uneducated Right Wing Buffoons Remain Unconvinced When Qualified Experts Say That Global Warming Is A Fact

[Oglethorpe]

Michael Dobony" <sodomized...@teaparty.net> wrote in message
news:jspn09$r0p$1...@speranza.aioe.org...> Why don't Americans believe in
global warming?
>
> eb 8th 2011, 20:03 by E.G. | AUSTIN
>

<snip for brevity>

Global warming/climate change is real. Man caused global warming/climate
change is a lie.

[Sam Wormley]

On 7/2/12 12:06 AM, Oglethorpe wrote:
> Global warming/climate change is real. Man caused global warming/climate
> change is a lie.

Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on
climate change.
When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is
warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that we’re
causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has
a distinct human fingerprint on it.

In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more
complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a
number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate
scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human
greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:



The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the
atmosphere.

Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon
dioxide.

Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because
the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)

Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.
Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise
wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the
surface.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is
consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days,
and this is what has been observed.

If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the
stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if
the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should
cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the
troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.

This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere
should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has
also been observed.

It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed
shrinking.
(References for all of these findings can be found here.)
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html


Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based
on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we
have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the
conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.

See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 22:12:49 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 7/2/12 12:06 AM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>> Global warming/climate change is real. Man caused global
>> warming/climate change is a lie.
>
> Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on
> climate change.

Translation: Wormley believes post hoc fallacies.

< snip cut and paste crap from his idiot propaganda website. >

His crap isn't science in the least. He has NO testable hypothesis, he
ignores the data, and he continues to bleat about drinking the Cruel-Aid.

[Sam Wormley]

On 7/1/12 11:21 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 22:12:49 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/12 12:06 AM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>>> Global warming/climate change is real. Man caused global
>>> warming/climate change is a lie.
>>
>> Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on
>> climate change.
>
> Translation: Wormley believes post hoc fallacies.
>
> < snip cut and paste crap from his idiot propaganda website.>
>

About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what *peer reviewed science
has to say about global warming*. When you peruse the many arguments of
global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to
focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader
picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full
weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating
on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating
glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realize the planet
as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader
picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be
political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to
spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the
cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely
the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what
is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical
Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on
the science.

About the author

Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication
Fellow for the *Global Change Institute at the University of
Queensland*. He studied physics at the University of Queensland,
Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his
post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the
science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but *taken
directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature*. To those seeking
to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed
papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are
provided whenever possible).

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal
donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations
with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is
strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web
designer wife.

See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

[Jo Stein]

What about NASA then:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Please explain what is wrong with their evidence.
I see a human fingerprint in that graph.
--
jo
"Never attribute to malice that which can
be adequately explained by stupidity."
Hanlon's Razor

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:13:36 +0200, Jo Stein wrote:

> Den 02.07.2012 06:21, skrev Marvin the Martian:
>> On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 22:12:49 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/2/12 12:06 AM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>>>> Global warming/climate change is real. Man caused global
>>>> warming/climate change is a lie.
>>>
>>> Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on
>>> climate change.
>>
>> Translation: Wormley believes post hoc fallacies.
>>
>> < snip cut and paste crap from his idiot propaganda website. >
>>
>> His crap isn't science in the least. He has NO testable hypothesis, he
>> ignores the data, and he continues to bleat about drinking the
>> Cruel-Aid.
>>
> What about NASA then:
> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> Please explain what is wrong with their evidence. I see a human
> fingerprint in that graph.

Your website starts out with a post hoc fallacy based on a lie: They show
a graph of CO2 levels. The recent data was gathered from the top of a
volcano on a lush green tropical island surrounded by an ocean that is
CO2 sourcing. This data was tacked on to ice core data gathered from a
perpetual glacier in the Antarctic; very little life, totally frozen and
surrounded by an ocean that is a carbon source. It is an apples to
oranges comparison and then they declare that "CO2 has never been
higher". This also ignores that they have daily readings on top of Mount
Loa but the ice core data has a resolution of 1000 years.

It is a post hoc fallacy because you're saying "never before and with
this, ergo causes this".

That disposes of the top of your deceptive website.

They then get to "facts" that are "not disputed". One that they forgot
to mention is that NO ONE has been able to show how additional CO2 could
have caused the warming seen in the 1980-2000. This is why there are so
many papers trying to show a false feedback to explain the warming.

Another fact is that the CO2 in the ice core data LAGS the warming by 800
years. There is this principle in physics called "causality" that says
that things that happen AFTER an event could not have caused the event.

The sea level rise thing has been debunked. The sea level is not rising
at the rate they've claimed.

Yes the earth has warmed. This is due to the end of the last ice age
which happened 7000 years ago as they mentioned.

Since this article was published, both claims of the Greenland ice sheet
melting and the Antarctic ice sheet melting have been debunked.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/26/greenland-ice-sheet-
climate-change>
<http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051012.shtml>

(By now the reasonable person would be questioning the veracity of the
NASA Website)

What else? Ice has been melting since the end of the ice age. Again,
causality says that the end of the ice age happened BEFORE the industrial
age so the industrial age didn't cause it.

Ocean acidification:
<http://www.all-about-ph.com/ph-versus-temperature.html>

Yes, CO2 forms carbonic acid but more CO2 does not cause calcium
carbonate to form. We had this discussion in another thread.

So, at best you have on your NASA website a bunch of errors, and what you
really have is a bunch of damned lies and deceptions.

Glad to explain it to you. Hope this helps. Figure you're a religious
true believer so I doubt it.

[Marvin the Martian]

It's a political propaganda website. They lie.

[Bill Snyder]

You're a political propaganda poster. You lie.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[bjacoby]

On 7/2/2012 9:25 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:

> You're a political propaganda poster. You lie.

Snider, you yapping puppy dog, you have NEVER, EVER entered into ANY
discussion of "climate science" here or anywhere else. Wormley may be a
willful liar and has limited science understanding but at least he has
SOME knowledge of science. You obviously are incapable of ANY
intelligent comments and only serve the purpose of firing insults and
false accusations at your "enemies". Why don't you go check your dish
for food.

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:30:28 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

>On 7/2/2012 9:25 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>> You're a political propaganda poster. You lie.
>
>Snider, you yapping puppy dog, you have NEVER, EVER entered into ANY
>discussion of "climate science" here or anywhere else.

You wish, shit-bot. I have posted links to scientific papers and
sites a good many times; I have pointed out repeatedly that
Henry's Law shows that your "magic soda pop disproves ocean
acidification" claim is a silly lie; I produced references proving
that Marvie lied like a rug (twice) when he said the temperature
in Antarctica never tops 0 C, so the ice there couldn't melt,
etc., etc.

> Wormley may be a
>willful liar and has limited science understanding but at least he has
>SOME knowledge of science. You obviously are incapable of ANY
>intelligent comments and only serve the purpose of firing insults and
>false accusations at your "enemies". Why don't you go check your dish
>for food.

Why don't you go eat shit, like a maggot is supposed to, instead
of squirming around on a keyboard?

[bjacoby]

On 7/2/2012 10:41 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:30:28 -0400, bjacoby<bja...@iwaynet.net>

>> Wormley may be a
>> willful liar and has limited science understanding but at least he has
>> SOME knowledge of science. You obviously are incapable of ANY
>> intelligent comments and only serve the purpose of firing insults and
>> false accusations at your "enemies". Why don't you go check your dish
>> for food.
>
> Why don't you go eat shit, like a maggot is supposed to, instead
> of squirming around on a keyboard?

QED.

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:02:43 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

I keep telling you, shit-bot -- and you, being the fool that you
are, keep forgetting -- that snipping the evidence of your lies
doesn't magically make it disappear from the world forever. See,
there's that nasty old response you couldn't deal with, again:

You wish, shit-bot. I have posted links to scientific papers and
sites a good many times; I have pointed out repeatedly that
Henry's Law shows that your "magic soda pop disproves ocean
acidification" claim is a silly lie; I produced references proving
that Marvie lied like a rug (twice) when he said the temperature
in Antarctica never tops 0 C, so the ice there couldn't melt,
etc., etc.

[Will Janoschka]

The human fingerprint in that graph is that
of NASA's Dr. James Hansen, only qualified
in political misdirection. Yes! earthlings are
straining Earth resources. NASA has not
a clue as to how that really happens!

They claim they measure atmospheric CO2
in ppmv. Please try to measure human
atmospheric stupidiity in ppmv. -will-

[Jo Stein]

On 03.07.2012 04:22, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:13:36, Jo Stein <jst...@broadpark.no> wrote:

...

>> What about NASA then:
>> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>> Please explain what is wrong with their evidence.
>> I see a human fingerprint in that graph.

...

> The human fingerprint in that graph is that
> of NASA's Dr. James Hansen, only qualified
> in political misdirection. Yes! earthlings are
> straining Earth resources. NASA has not
> a clue as to how that really happens!
>
> They claim they measure atmospheric CO2
> in ppmv. Please try to measure human
> atmospheric stupidiity in ppmv. -will-
>

The fingerprint come from all of us,
and we all know how that really happened.

When scaled properly, the evidence from NASA show
show a strong correlation with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg
--
jo
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its
way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the
false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just
as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

[Will Janoschka]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:15:25, Jo Stein <jst...@broadpark.no> wrote:

> On 03.07.2012 04:22, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:13:36, Jo Stein <jst...@broadpark.no> wrote:

> ....

> >> What about NASA then:
> >> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> >> Please explain what is wrong with their evidence.
> >> I see a human fingerprint in that graph.

> ....

> > The human fingerprint in that graph is that
> > of NASA's Dr. James Hansen, only qualified
> > in political misdirection. Yes! earthlings are
> > straining Earth resources. NASA has not
> > a clue as to how that really happens!
> >
> > They claim they measure atmospheric CO2
> > in ppmv. Please try to measure human
> > atmospheric stupidiity in ppmv. -will-
> >
> The fingerprint come from all of us,
> and we all know how that really happened.
>
> When scaled properly, the evidence from NASA show
> show a strong correlation with this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg

First thing. Never trust any data from NASA. All BullShit.

Second. If you wish to "define" "Global Warming" as
"The rapid rise in number of stupid earthlings", rather
than "CO2 is the cause of everything bad", than I
truly will agree with you.

That definition is certainly "Anthropogenic".
It would be interesting to study what is happening,
and what "can" be done to discourage the negative effects.

Perhaps we "need" an open season on anthropoids!
The ones that have skills like running or hiding are safe.
Both of those skills show, abandonment of "owenership"!