Archive

100 reasons why global warming is natural

  • Writerbuckeye
    derek bomar wrote:
    Writerbuckeye wrote: Derek, you didn't answer my question about the Medieval warming period.

    How could the temperatures during that time so long ago -- when the population was negligible compared to now -- have been WARMER than what we're now experiencing?

    I'll await your answer. Oh and a hint: even the climatologists can't explain it; they simply choose to ignore it, which is why the "science" behind AGW is a complete and utter hoax.
    the answer is in the graphs I posted - it's not the temp, it's the speed of the rise or fall relative to historical means that is what we're seeing now. I'm not denying that the earth's temp changes with or without man, I'm saying we're helping.
    Uh huh, like man "helped" back in the day, I guess. I still don't see enough conclusive evidence ANYWHERE to say we can reach a conclusion worthy of investing trillions of dollars.

    Not even close.
  • derek bomar
    Writerbuckeye wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    Writerbuckeye wrote: Derek, you didn't answer my question about the Medieval warming period.

    How could the temperatures during that time so long ago -- when the population was negligible compared to now -- have been WARMER than what we're now experiencing?

    I'll await your answer. Oh and a hint: even the climatologists can't explain it; they simply choose to ignore it, which is why the "science" behind AGW is a complete and utter hoax.
    the answer is in the graphs I posted - it's not the temp, it's the speed of the rise or fall relative to historical means that is what we're seeing now. I'm not denying that the earth's temp changes with or without man, I'm saying we're helping.
    Uh huh, like man "helped" back in the day, I guess. I still don't see enough conclusive evidence ANYWHERE to say we can reach a conclusion worthy of investing trillions of dollars.

    Not even close.
    you don't understand, so I am not gonna waste my time trying to explain it
  • jmog
    derek bomar wrote:
    jmog wrote:
    Con_Alma wrote: How does that relative change correlate to relative change in activity from the sun? Does anyone know?
    Yes, there's tons of data out there and I posted a lot of it on the previous GW thread (and surprise surprise Derek ignored it) with regards to the sun's radiation output over the timeframe we are seeing temperature rises.

    I laugh at Derek trying to "explain" to me a graph. Funny, too funny.

    You say "at no other time over the last 2000 years has the earth seen a change as dramtic in temp as we have in the last century".

    That maybe fact, maybe thrown out data numbers with "Climate Gate", either way you still haven't talked about the CAUSE of this warming trend.

    I have talked about sun output, other planets temperature spikes in the same time frame, etc over the last 2 GW threads. You always ignore it.
    what other thread? I don't live on this board bro
    Your nearly 300 posts compared to my 120 shows you "live on this board" enough.

    You posted many times on the GW thread from a few weeks ago, if your memory is that bad, do a search. You have figured out google and wikipedia, I'm sure you can figure out the search on this forum.
  • derek bomar
    jmog wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    jmog wrote:
    Con_Alma wrote: How does that relative change correlate to relative change in activity from the sun? Does anyone know?
    Yes, there's tons of data out there and I posted a lot of it on the previous GW thread (and surprise surprise Derek ignored it) with regards to the sun's radiation output over the timeframe we are seeing temperature rises.

    I laugh at Derek trying to "explain" to me a graph. Funny, too funny.

    You say "at no other time over the last 2000 years has the earth seen a change as dramtic in temp as we have in the last century".

    That maybe fact, maybe thrown out data numbers with "Climate Gate", either way you still haven't talked about the CAUSE of this warming trend.

    I have talked about sun output, other planets temperature spikes in the same time frame, etc over the last 2 GW threads. You always ignore it.
    what other thread? I don't live on this board bro
    Your nearly 300 posts compared to my 120 shows you "live on this board" enough.

    You posted many times on the GW thread from a few weeks ago, if your memory is that bad, do a search. You have figured out google and wikipedia, I'm sure you can figure out the search on this forum.
    so 300 posts is living on here? yeesh
  • ttae8286
    If you would like to take about 30 minutes and be educated on the manipulation of "global warming" data, please watch this video.

    BE WARNED: This is an actual scientist, not a fear mongering journalist or politician.

    http://www.cfact.org/a/1652/Monckton-names-names-on-Climategate
  • jmog
    Derek found google, nice job.

    Now, your post contains someone's OPINION that its "all of the above".

    You have yet to explain Mars as just one example.

    It is warming at a similar rate over the same time period. Mars has about 25 times more CO2 by percentage than Earth. Why isn't the CO2 on Mars causing exponential rises in temperature compared to Earth? Its a simple question, that none of the AGW scientists have an answer for.
  • derek bomar
    ttae8286 wrote: If you would like to take about 30 minutes and be educated on the manipulation of "global warming" data, please watch this video.

    BE WARNED: This is an actual scientist, not a fear mongering journalist or politician.

    http://www.cfact.org/a/1652/Monckton-names-names-on-Climategate
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

    Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and hereditary peer.
  • ts1227
    QuakerOats wrote: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

    ...... contrary to the opinions of the socialists/Marxists/communists ...........
    But I classify myself as liberal, which is what you mean by all of your flame words at the end, and generally believe that it's just natural Earth cycles (with the stipulation that there is nothing yet to prove or disprove any emissions could be affecting said cycles). What does that make me?
  • rookie_j70
    Global Warming is a lie. If you are dumb enough to think that Global Warming is happening, then come live in Ohio for 10 months out the year.
  • seahawks rock
    it is natural and unnatural at the same time...there is ice ages and there are warming eras. its just heating up a little faster than its supposed to
  • I Wear Pants
    An opinion to either extreme, that global warming is either non-existent/not at all influenced by man or that there isn't some natural effect to the temperature changes currently going on, is completely ridiculous.

    Edit: So am I allowed to call anyone on the right side of the political aisle a fascist as an insult like quakeroats used marxist/communist at the beginning of this thread to insult left leaning individuals?

    Just think veiled insults are even worse than straightforward ones.
  • QuakerOats
    Why do those who are socialist or Marxist or communist, or propose policy in line with those systems, not like to be identified as such. Are they ashamed of their hidden agendas? I am a conservative, perhaps a libertarian, I cannot stand the government intrusion into every aspect of our lives and the trampling of the wall set up by the constitution to protect Americans from the government. Call me whatever that means, I would be proud to bear that name.

    But when the radicals who have taken over our government put forth their radical policies we must call it what it is, otherwise we are failing ourselves in the name of political correctness.
  • cbus4life
    Considering it is completely incorrect to call them Marxists, of course they don't want to be identified in that way.
  • Strapping Young Lad
    Der...Why do conservatives get so upset when I call them Nazi's????
  • Writerbuckeye
    derek bomar wrote:
    Writerbuckeye wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    Writerbuckeye wrote: Derek, you didn't answer my question about the Medieval warming period.

    How could the temperatures during that time so long ago -- when the population was negligible compared to now -- have been WARMER than what we're now experiencing?

    I'll await your answer. Oh and a hint: even the climatologists can't explain it; they simply choose to ignore it, which is why the "science" behind AGW is a complete and utter hoax.
    the answer is in the graphs I posted - it's not the temp, it's the speed of the rise or fall relative to historical means that is what we're seeing now. I'm not denying that the earth's temp changes with or without man, I'm saying we're helping.
    Uh huh, like man "helped" back in the day, I guess. I still don't see enough conclusive evidence ANYWHERE to say we can reach a conclusion worthy of investing trillions of dollars.

    Not even close.
    you don't understand, so I am not gonna waste my time trying to explain it
    That's the spirit: run away and hide when asked questions you (or AGW scientists, for that matter) can't answer. The only thing you forgot to do was say is: the debate is over. :)
  • fish82
    Writerbuckeye wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    Writerbuckeye wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    Writerbuckeye wrote: Derek, you didn't answer my question about the Medieval warming period.

    How could the temperatures during that time so long ago -- when the population was negligible compared to now -- have been WARMER than what we're now experiencing?

    I'll await your answer. Oh and a hint: even the climatologists can't explain it; they simply choose to ignore it, which is why the "science" behind AGW is a complete and utter hoax.
    the answer is in the graphs I posted - it's not the temp, it's the speed of the rise or fall relative to historical means that is what we're seeing now. I'm not denying that the earth's temp changes with or without man, I'm saying we're helping.
    Uh huh, like man "helped" back in the day, I guess. I still don't see enough conclusive evidence ANYWHERE to say we can reach a conclusion worthy of investing trillions of dollars.

    Not even close.
    you don't understand, so I am not gonna waste my time trying to explain it
    That's the spirit: run away and hide when asked questions you (or AGW scientists, for that matter) can't answer. The only thing you forgot to do was say is: the debate is over. :)
    Big Al subscribes to that theory.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fooYtalS9Gc

    Run, Forest, Run!!!!!! :D
  • derek bomar
    Writerbuckeye wrote: That's the spirit: run away and hide when asked questions you (or AGW scientists, for that matter) can't answer. The only thing you forgot to do was say is: the debate is over. :)
    yea, the debate is over. you lose.
  • Strapping Young Lad
    Temperatures reached this point 20 million years ago. My question is what was the cause of that rise???

    Also, why do most scientific institutions, reportedly, accept that the rising temperature since the industrial revolution is a consequence of humanity??? Are they just less intelligent or less informed than our huddler scientists???

    Does the opposition to the Global Warming movement have any good evidence to supprt their side???

    I realize that climate patterns change, but have they changed in the manner that they are now??? Is this change more abrupt than others??? Will it continue to rise???
  • derek bomar
    Strapping Young Lad wrote: Temperatures reached this point 20 million years ago. My question is what was the cause of that rise???

    Also, why do most scientific institutions, reportedly, accept that the rising temperature since the industrial revolution is a consequence of humanity??? Are they just less intelligent or less informed than our huddler scientists???

    Does the opposition to the Global Warming movement have any good evidence to supprt their side???

    I realize that climate patterns change, but have they changed in the manner that they are now??? Is this change more abrupt than others??? Will it continue to rise???
    the whole point of what I have been trying to say is that the increase in the last 100 years (relative to previous mean temps) has been more dramatic than anything we've seen in the last 2000 years. The polar ice caps are melting. We dump tons of shit that can't be reasonably assumed to be beneficial to the environment into the environment. Global weather patterns change with or without man due to a variety of factors, but our recent population explosion and increased carbon footprint can't be reasonably believed to have a null effect on the speeding up of the weather change...
  • jmog
    Out of curiousity, what kind of car do you drive Derek?

    I believe AGW is a hoax while natural GW is true, and I'm still a conservationist, aka don't polute the air as much as you can, use less resources, etc. I have CFL lightbulbs all around my house, I drive a Ford Focus manual that gets 35+ MPG.

    I hardly use the A/C in the summer and keep the thermostat in the low to mid 60s in the winter while we are home and 50 while we aren't home.

    I'm just curious if you are a hypocrit like Al Gore, a vehement believer in this hoax but still don't conserve jack crap, or if you actually do as I do and be as conservative resource wise as you can be?

    I bet you never expected that from someone who is so against the belief in AGW, but I just understand the science of combustion emissions while most do not. But I happen to also believe in not using up more resources than you have to.
  • jmog
    FYI, you still haven't answered the Mars question. Explain Mars temperature rise over the same time period with 95% (roughly) CO2 in the atmosphere while we are only at 0.038%.
  • Strapping Young Lad
    ^^^Jmog, you can answer this...why does it seem like all these scientists are buying GW???? Obviously there's something there that is driving them. What is it???
  • FatHobbit
    derek bomar wrote: We dump tons of shit that can't be reasonably assumed to be beneficial to the environment into the environment. Global weather patterns change with or without man due to a variety of factors, but our recent population explosion and increased carbon footprint can't be reasonably believed to have a null effect on the speeding up of the weather change...
    I think littering is bad for the environment, but I don't think that it will cause the world to end UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW!!! It's not as clear as you would like to make it sound. There are people on both sides, and when people (especially people who will somehow profit from it) start to scream about how important it is we do something right away or the world is going to end I get suspicious.
  • FatHobbit
    Strapping Young Lad wrote: ^^^Jmog, you can answer this...why does it seem like all these scientists are buying GW???? Obviously there's something there that is driving them. What is it???
    There are plenty of scientists on both sides of the issue. The GW people would have you believe that all of the scientists are behind them but they are not.
  • cbus4life
    I think we have to get away from this idea that ALL scientists who believe in global warming and man's role in it are somehow profiting from it, in bed with the liberals, etc., etc.

    I refuse to believe that all scientists who are drawing conclusions about man contributing greatly to global warming are using "fuzzy" data, not telling the whole story, etc.

    There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

    But, as always, good to see we have so many eminent scientists on the huddle who can make, absolutely, claims for and against global warming. We're incredibly blessed here.