[Bloy2004]

....

[jhowelb]

Obviously you missed it. The argument never started. You lost and any additional attempts to restart it are futile.

[fizzissist]

That was just for contrast(http://geochemistry.usask.ca/bill/Co...laciations.pdf)... you can spin it anyway you like.


Here's another...PBS Ombud: NewsHour Climate Change Report Worth Criticizing | Blog | Media Matters for America

And , while you're there, might as well enlighten yourselves by doing some reading about the other crap that is put out by FOX.

Your first link is dead. Much like the basis for your presumed position in this discussion, it returns a "Not Found".

As for reading about "the other crap that is put out by FOX", I certainly won't waste my time at Media Matters when I can read FOX itself. I can read then a half-dozen OTHER news agency's reports on the same subject and make the decision for MYSELF who has the most credible, or, what combination of those sources will provide me with the most accurate and truthful insight.

Go busy yourself reading your favorite news source.... I'll go back to the science that the news sources glean and filter their stories from (and most often copy each other's stories).

Personally, I've already spent countless hours here, posting and discussing the heart of the matter, that I'm not going to waste my time on you, who just jumped in.

[handlewanker]

Bloy oh Bloy, as you have nothing to say except snide remarks I'll do as other will do and just ignore you........now you can go away and play with your balls....I expect you like cricket....LOL.

Interlect....the intelligence you get when you browse the internet for all and sundry information.
Intellect the ability to understand what you have gained from browsing the Internet....where did you go to school?????
......

[Bloy2004]

http://geochemistry.usask.ca/bill/Co...laciations.pdf

Look guys, all I'm sayin' is that humans ARE affecting the climate. To deny this by any of you is simply turning from obvious truth.
The question is.... how soon and how severely?

You go to great lengths exercising futility to disprove this glaringly real phenomenon. You only think you have won the argument because of attrition by those who give up on showing you otherwise.

[handlewanker]

http://geochemistry.usask.ca/bill/Co...laciations.pdf

Look guys, all I'm sayin' is that humans ARE affecting the climate. To deny this by any of you is simply turning from obvious truth.
The question is.... how soon and how severely?

You go to great lengths exercising futility to disprove this glaringly real phenomenon. You only think you have won the argument because of attrition by those who give up on showing you otherwise.

You're a nut case, go home and take your balls with you.

[fizzissist]

http://geochemistry.usask.ca/bill/Co...laciations.pdf

Look guys, all I'm sayin' is that humans ARE affecting the climate. To deny this by any of you is simply turning from obvious truth.
The question is.... how soon and how severely?

You go to great lengths exercising futility to disprove this glaringly real phenomenon. You only think you have won the argument because of attrition by those who give up on showing you otherwise.

SHOW ME WHERE I'VE DENIED THAT HUMANS ARE AFFECTING CLIMATE. SHOW ME ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF MY SAYING THAT.

I have in fact stated repeatedly that there is an anthropogenic component of climate "change", both atmospheric from emissions and from land use.

Now what's amusing is that you come along and here you're saying "The question is.... how soon and how severely?" Ok. I'll give you the answer to your vague and ambiguous question. WE DON'T KNOW.

The reason we don't know? Simply: The GCMs are proven wrong again and again, we don't know how much water vapor is in the atmosphere at any given time, and the basis for the temperature measurements is still in question.

There are projections of future climate trends based on observed data, and there are projections based on models. We know how accurate the models are. We can't be sure of how accurate the "observed" data is, because it's too often been modified, or you're not allowed to see it.

Am I being presumptuous in thinking that you still embrace MBH98?

[Bloy2004]

You're a nut case, go home and take your balls with you.

Now, now, handlewanker, Relax! If you are going to push anyone out the door who might find your "conclusions" unacceptable, you only display your inability to have an open mind.

[Bloy2004]

Am I being presumptuous in thinking that you still embrace MBH98?

Yes!
(But I DO accept some of it for the reasons expressed so within its body.)

[fizzissist]

Yes!
(But I DO accept some of it for the reasons expressed so within its body.)

Now THAT'S funny!!

[Bloy2004]

Now THAT'S funny!!

I'm pleased that you like my humor!

[fizzissist]

For those that still believe that man is the primary cause of "global warming"....

“To single out one variable, namely radiation through the atmosphere and the associated ‘greenhouse effect,’ as being the primary driving force of atmospheric and oceanic climate, is a simplistic and absurd way to view the complex interaction of forces between the land, ocean, atmosphere, and outer space.” Robert E. Stevenson

[fizzissist]

For those that believe in windpower as a solution to reducing greenhouse gasses and global warming.... here's a little lesson from Canada in economics.

Ontario Liberal energy policy: ‘disaster’ or just plain embarrassing? | Full Comment | National Post

---If it was such a good idea, then why did T. Boone Pickens quietly back away from his windfarm project?? Is it that he realized that paying $135 for something he would end up selling for $16.50 wasn't profitable??

[Larry83301]

For those that still believe that man is the primary cause of "global warming"....

“To single out one variable, namely radiation through the atmosphere and the associated ‘greenhouse effect,’ as being the primary driving force of atmospheric and oceanic climate, is a simplistic and absurd way to view the complex interaction of forces between the land, ocean, atmosphere, and outer space.” Robert E. Stevenson

Check this out, even our Mars rovers can pollute a whole planet — Mars is Melting - NASA Science

Man caused Global warming???? :nono: :nono: :nono:

Larry

[fizzissist]

Larry...
That was in 2003. Newer Mars rovers, such as Curiosity, are using green power to reduce greenhouse emissions on Mars. This has resulted in the Martian ice caps recovering, and a re-establishment and normalization of the Martian atmosphere to pre-anthropogenic levels.

The Republicans have tried to block these efforts, but thanks to people like Michael Mann, James Hansen, and Peter Gleick sanity has prevailed, and Mars will be habitable once again. Once the windmill powered solar farms are finished, we can begin our migration back to our Mother planet.

The Deniers MUST be defeated!! (chair)

[handlewanker]

This is very amusing, looking at someone trying desperately to rekindle the flames when the fire has long gone dead.

Bloy, your matches are wet, your arguments are not going to rekindle the dead topic already discounted by the debasing of The Inconvenient Truth (lie) and turn it around to make a startling new discovery instead that the Earth is really flat.....LOL.......perhaps there's life on Mars...don't hold your breath.
Ian.

[fizzissist]

It just keeps getting hotter, and hotter...and the past keeps getting cooler, and cooler....

By how much?? We don't know. They don't say. Or why.

"..I thought I'd update that analysis to include July's and August's temperatures. To my surprise, NASA's entire temperature record, going back to January 1880, changed between NASA's June update and its August update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The entire spreadsheet needed to be updated..."

Blog: NASA's Rubber Ruler

[Bloy2004]

Global Climate Change Indicators

Excerpts below taken from above link.


"How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?
Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels."



"How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?
A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations."

[fizzissist]

[url=http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/]Global Climate Change Indicators[/url


"How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

We know because Tiny Tim says so...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DEoOdcYKbc

[handlewanker]

Er Chicken Little, the sky isn't falling, even though you think so, but we know it's just a figment of your imagination, so we don't jump up and down clucking away like a wet hen.

If the 20th century is anything to go by, with the massive emissions of gun related pollutants from a number of World and local wars, and the massive burning of coal then oil without all the environmental initiatives we now practice, would should have made a huge impact on the statistical analysis of the Global Climate trend, but glory be Mother Nature didn't bat an eyelid, and we have figures to prove it........so why should we.

Get a life Bloy, the sky ain't falling.

When the Greenland grape harvest gets to market, then we can start to worry.
Ian.