• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

Tokenconservative said:
PC did not exist in the 70s, and in the 70s it was the "consensus" that we were headed into another ice age.
Click to expand...


Yeah, not really. Not among the scientific community.

Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tokenconservative said:
Then why not summarize it so that others may enjoy your knowlege?

By the way, um...someone who posted that list calling my, by comparison, spritely piece "tedius" and "heavy going" is a bit like a hog calling a mule ugly.
Click to expand...
You offensive speciesist! Hogs and mules are all equally ugly and beautiful. ;)

And do you really think that your list was fresh and creative? Show of hands: any "denier" in here NOT seen that list in one form or another (usually presented in a bit more readable style and format) 20-30 time before?

Tokie
Click to expand...
No claims for creativity (I'm rubbish at that) but I hadn't seen it put so concisely before. I'm aware of other lists, but the ones I've seen don't expose the degree of Doublethink involved.

How much more readable could it be? Short and snappy, I thought.
 
Tokenconservative said:
Find what?

Apparently no, you did not "get it." You can't summarize it, so that means you din't.

PC did not exist in the 70s, and in the 70s it was the "consensus" that we were headed into another ice age.

What comes up "surprisingly often"?

You know, for someone claiming my post is "heavy going" you are remarkably unclear in your own writing.

Tokie
Click to expand...
Errmm. Who are you replying to?

My scoreboard is ablaze right now.:D
 
Change in the Weather

Don't know if this is true or not, but I just read an article that said the recent weather in the UK has taken a turn to quite cold. That the Artic ice is back to winter normal levels. Etc.. :confused:
 
Classic, can I borrow your quote for my list? that's the usual evangelist response for cooling. The usual response for hotter weather is, of course, "AGW".
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Classic, can I borrow your quote for my list? that's the usual evangelist response for cooling. The usual response for hotter weather is, of course, "AGW".
Click to expand...

Classic?

Have you read any science on AGW? In this scientific writing, have you read anywhere that equates global warming with hot weather? Where?

Localised weather is not global climate. If you don't even understand that, how dare you presume to be able to argue climate topics with any credibility at all.
 
volatile said:
Classic?

Have you read any science on AGW? In this scientific writing, have you read anywhere that equates global warming with hot weather? Where?

Localised weather is not global climate. If you don't even understand that, how dare you presume to be able to argue climate topics with any credibility at all.
Click to expand...
:dl: Tell that to AGW evangelists like Capel Dog who use weather data (when is warmer) to substain their dogma.
 
Ah.....the Big Bad Analogue Model, that proves AGW by being .... cold.

Ah.....the Big Bad Analogue Model, that proves AGW by being .... hot.

Ah.....the Big Bad Analogue Model, that proves AGW by being .... cold and hot!

Ah.....the Big Bad Analogue Model, that proves AGW by being .... hot and cold!

...
 
Last edited:
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Tell that to AGW evangelists like Capel Dog who use weather data (when is warmer) to substain their dogma.
Click to expand...

Weather data (data is plural) is not the same as individual local weather events. Furthermore, no-one credible, ever, has said that global warming means it will be hot everywhere, all the time.

You, Sir, are mendacious, ignorant and deluded.
 
volatile said:
Weather data (data is plural) is not the same as individual local weather events. Furthermore, no-one credible, ever, has said that global warming means it will be hot everywhere, all the time.

You, Sir, are mendacious, ignorant and deluded.
Click to expand...

Have you been working out your sillyness? Is in great shape today. Who claimed that my point is that AGWrs believe that "global warming means it will be hot everywhere, all the time. ". Your strawman is dully noted.

My point is that many boozos here claim that some local hot weather is a sign of AGW. No more and no less.

Links will follow to fsol request. THEN you have to go and say to the boozos what you said to me.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Have you been working out your sillyness? Is in great shape today. Who claimed that my point is that AGWrs believe that "global warming means it will be hot everywhere, all the time. ". Your strawman is dully noted.

My point is that many boozos here claim that some local hot weather is a sign of AGW. No more and no less.

Links will follow to fsol request. THEN you have to go and say to the boozos what you said to me.
Click to expand...

Individual weather events nor not proof positive or negative for AGW. It is possible, however, to make conclusions about climate from a data-set of weather events. The difference is key, and it seems to be the one you are missing.

The fact that it is colder than usual in place X is, on its own, irrelevant. No theory of global warming posits warm weather everywhere, all the time. Find me a link to anyone, here or elsewhere, who has said that is does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom