25 Jan 15
8 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have not answered my question. You are trying to hold me to a double standard even after I have answered yours. You continue to be a cad. You cannot explain the natural cause of the warming period of 1900-1940 so you have no credibility here. Do some research and get back to me. Your ignorance as well as your arrogance is showing.
Your evasiveness ...[text shortened]... ere. You are desperate and want to digress. All losers resort to that tactic. You are boring me.
You have not answered my question.
Which one? I am unaware of any question you asked that I failed to answer to the best of my ability so please humour me and state it here....
You are trying to hold me to a double standard even after I have answered yours.
Which ones? You still haven't answered my last one. Still waiting...
It only requires a Yes or No or Don't know. Why is that to hard for you?
You cannot explain the natural cause of the warming period of 1900-1940
I have already answered that to the best of my ability. My answer was along the lines of:
I am not a climate scientist so I cannot know the exact cause of that particular event BUT I can list a number of possible natural causes, which I did ( see previous posts ), that can account for similar events if not this event. No doubt if the cause wasn't one of those I listed, it would be some other cause and one that the climate scientists would know about.
If you really want to know which was the cause of that particular event; look it up yourself from the real experts on this i.e. the climate scientists that know a hell more about it than you or I.
so you have no credibility here.
As I already pointed out in one of my other posts, if it is true that I don't have any “credibility here” merely because I don't know the exact natural cause, then, by the same flawed logic, you cannot have any “credibility here” merely because you don't know the exact natural cause.
Do some research and get back to me.
Why? The exact natural cause is irrelevant here precisely because it is natural. Why don't YOU do some irrelevant research and get back to me? You haven't done the research so why should I?
25 Jan 15
10 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree that it either probably was or, at the very least, may have been mostly man made. A climate scientist would be better qualified to say which than I. I am at least sure it couldn't have been totally natural as there was bound to be some CO2 influence since basic physics says there inevitably would have been.
I am curious as to why you think it was natural. Was it because Metal Brain told you so, or do you have any other evidence for it being natural?
I think it was mostly man made.
But he appears to be implying that a particular warming period in the past being completely natural logically implies that you cannot have last years warming being man made -which is false. It is his false inference that I am arguing against here rather than his premise.
However, he not being a climate scientist and having ignorance of the science, his premise is also rather questionable (an understatement ) as he has no evidence nor rational reason to believe that it couldn't have been mostly man made thus his premise is just unsubstantiated opinion which I assume is based on what he wants to be true although I don't rule out general illogic not based on what he wants.
I want it to be true that it is all a myth! The difference is, I don't believe what I do because of what I want.
25 Jan 15
But he appears to be implying that a particular warming period in the past being completely natural logically implies that you cannot have last years warming being man made -which is false. It is his false inference that I am arguing against here rather than his premise.
While the other side argues the false assumption that it must be man made.
Nice to know that the other planets in the solar system are experiencing warming too.
25 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Eladar
[b]But he appears to be implying that a particular warming period in the past being completely natural logically implies that you cannot have last years warming being man made -which is false. It is his false inference that I am arguing against here rather than his premise.
While the other side argues the false assumption that it must be man made.
Nice to know that the other planets in the solar system are experiencing warming too.[/b]
the false assumption that it must be man made.
How can it be a “false assumption” when basic science has proved it was at least partly man made?
Nice to know that the other planets in the solar system are experiencing warming too.
What is that supposed to mean? Haven't you heard of Venus? It is hotter than what it should be if CO2 was not a greenhouse gas. Not sure what would be, as you said, “nice” about that, but it is a scientific fact nevertheless and confirms the greenhouse theory.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by humy"I am not a climate scientist so I cannot know the exact cause of that particular event"You have not answered my question.
Which one? I am unaware of any question you asked that I failed to answer to the best of my ability so please humour me and state it here....You are trying to hold me to a double standard even after I have answered yours.
Which ones? You still haven't answered my last one. Still ...[text shortened]... U do some irrelevant research and get back to me? You haven't done the research so why should I?
Then stop pretending to know. Better yet, stop pretending climate scientists know. They don't. I'm sure there are plenty of theories none of them agree on, but isn't that always the case when nobody really knows?
It seems your opinion is based on a leap of faith....in scientists that can't admit how little they know.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow could it be mostly man made? Before 1940 energy use was much less than after 1940 and from 1940-1975 there was a cooling period. This is difficult for GW alarmists to explain based on the theory that CO2 drives warming. When the climate record is backwards like this natural causes seem to be the best explanation even to a simpleton. Even if the natural cause of the warming was CO2 from a volcano (for example) it brings up more questions than answers. That is why Humy is embarrassed and evasive right now. He knows any answer he gives will only make it harder for him to defend his position. That is why he asks questions he knows I have already answered with a brief statement. He cannot be honest if he is to save face, hence the transparent evasiveness.
I am curious as to why you think it was natural. Was it because Metal Brain told you so, or do you have any other evidence for it being natural?
I think it was mostly man made.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainCO2 in the atmosphere.
How could it be mostly man made?
Before 1940 energy use was much less than after 1940 and from 1940-1975 there was a cooling period.
Evidence for this please.
Also, a very large proportion of CO2 production (and global warming) is from change in land use due to agriculture. Energy use is only part of the equation.
And finally, if there was some other influence that caused cooling (possibly natural, possibly man made), the cooling you describe would be entirely possible without ruling out my claim.
[b[When the climate record is backwards like this natural causes seem to be the best explanation even to a simpleton.[/b]
I am sorry, but the 'its so obvious even a simpleton could understand it' is the sort of argument used by people who have no argument. If a simpleton can understand it, then you should have no problem explaining it. If however it only makes sense to simpletons, then you have to admit to being a simpleton.
26 Jan 15
10 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I am not a climate scientist so I cannot know the exact cause of that particular event"
Then stop pretending to know. Better yet, stop pretending climate scientists know. They don't. I'm sure there are plenty of theories none of them agree on, but isn't that always the case when nobody really knows?
It seems your opinion is based on a leap of faith....in scientists that can't admit how little they know.
"I cannot know the exact cause of that particular event"
Then stop pretending to know.
Never did. And you will not convince anyone here.
If you deny this, show us where I pretended this...
stop pretending climate scientists know.
They do know. They should since they are the scientists that actually researched it properly. That is unsurprising since, after all, that is what they are supposed to do.
Can you prove they don't know? Answer, no; because you are not a climate scientists and don't know what you are talking about.
I'm sure there are plenty of theories none of them agree on,
-but all agree that CO2 is the cause of some of the warming -the vast majority if not all agree with that theory. They disagreeing with some theories doesn't logically imply they disagree with this theory of there being CO2-induced warming just as it doesn't logically imply they disagree with the theory of gravity -You clearly are getting desperate here.
scientists that can't admit how little they know.
-and yet they know vastly more than you. So tell us why should we moronically take your word for it and believe you know more about it than they do when you are not even a climate scientist or any other kind of expert on that?
but isn't that always the case when nobody really knows?
yes, and it is also the case when everybody knows CO2 is causing some of the warming but disagrees about some of the more trivial details of that CO2 warming as well as other theories about climate not directly related to warming.
There are plenty of theories about the way the universe is expanding that cosmologists disagree about -so they don't know that the universe is expanding? 😕 -same flawed 'logic'.
Now I answered your question, will you at last answer mine? -answer, no; because you know you are wrong and we all know it.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by humy"They do know. They should since they are the scientists that actually researched it properly.""I cannot know the exact cause of that particular event"
Then stop pretending to know.
Never did. And you will not convince anyone here.
If you deny this, show us where I pretended this...
stop pretending climate scientists know.
They do know. They should since they are the scientists that actually researche ...[text shortened]... n, will you at last answer mine? -answer, no; because you know you are wrong and we all know it.
What is your source of information? Don't ask people to prove a negative. That is not reasonable.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you claiming there was less CO2 in the atmosphere during 1940-1975? It seems you are, so what is your source of information?
CO2 in the atmosphere.
[b]Before 1940 energy use was much less than after 1940 and from 1940-1975 there was a cooling period.
Evidence for this please.
Also, a very large proportion of CO2 production (and global warming) is from change in land use due to agriculture. Energy use is only part of the equation.
And finally, if there was some other i ...[text shortened]... g it. If however it only makes sense to simpletons, then you have to admit to being a simpleton.[/b]
Are you claiming there was less slash and burning of forests during 1940-1975? What is your source of information?
You are clearly the simpleton here. None of your claims make any sense.
26 Jan 15
8 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
Are you claiming there was less CO2 in the atmosphere during 1940-1975? It seems you are, so what is your source of information?
Are you claiming there was less slash and burning of forests during 1940-1975? What is your source of information?
You are clearly the simpleton here. None of your claims make any sense.
Are you claiming there was less CO2 in the atmosphere during 1940-1975?
"less" than what? Before 1940-1975? If so:
Since we all know CO2 levels have been measured to be consistently going up every year for many years now, he obviously didn't claim there was cooling because there was less CO2 during that period than before because there wasn't less CO2 during that period than what there was before that period and you are just being obtuse by pretending he claimed otherwise. You are not convincing anyone here.
If you meant after 1940-1975:
There was less CO2 during that cool period than after that cool period so that cooling logically couldn't be in conflict with evidence for man made warming. Do you have a problem with that?
Obviously, neither he nor I nor anyone else claims that a given cool period would NOT have natural causes. Exactly which part of that do you pretend to not comprehend? The cold period may have been and, because of what basic physics tells us, probably was less cold than what it would have been if there was no man made warming.
As for a warming period, a given warm period can, without the slightest logical contradiction, simultaneously have BOTH some natural causes AND some man made causes with each of the two contributing to the overall warming i.e. each partially being the cause of the total amount of the warming of that warm period. Do you deny this? Yes or No? Or do you pretend to not comprehend this?
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainNo, I am not.
Are you claiming there was less CO2 in the atmosphere during 1940-1975? It seems you are,...
Are you claiming there was less slash and burning of forests during 1940-1975?
No, I am not.
You are clearly the simpleton here. None of your claims make any sense.
Not surprising given your poor reading comprehension.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by Duncan ClarkeRecent archeological evidence suggests that dino's were driving SUV's.
2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years..
Which means that it was hotter 135 years ago - long before so called Global Warming.
The earth cools and warms because of that big bright thing in the sky, the sun, does not give out constant heat. At a average of 1KW per square metre, its contribution to the temperature on this planet far excee ...[text shortened]... put forward by governments in an attempt to control the population - a bit like religion really.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThen state the SPECIFIC cause of the warming of 1900-1940 and the cooling of 1940-1975. Humy will not do it and neither will you. If the 90% of climate scientists know more than the 10% of rational scientists show me that is the case. Don't be evasive like Humy. That is transparent and we all know it, he would just like to think otherwise.
No, I am not.
[b]Are you claiming there was less slash and burning of forests during 1940-1975?
No, I am not.
You are clearly the simpleton here. None of your claims make any sense.
Not surprising given your poor reading comprehension.[/b]