Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by wildgrass
I would love a fair debate. But, in my post, the data from a peer-reviewed article you asked for was cited in quotations, and the link to the article was in the quoted post. I've re-read my post and I don't know what more I needed to do.

(It's not like the data was buried in the article text either. The 69% figure was right in the abstract. For the thir ...[text shortened]... you haven't even thought about it. What data would convince you that your conclusions are wrong?

Both of the links you provided have no such information. You are playing stupid games with me and I do not appreciate it. Either admit you have no source of info to verify your claim or find one that does.

A specific 69% is impossible to conclude anyway. Even if you can provide a source of information I am sure it is bunk. No climate scientist that cares about his reputation would put out a figure that is an obvious guess that is not based on anything scientific. I am calling your bluff. You have resorted to desperate tactics that is unbecoming of a person of science. You need to grow up.

I answered Humy's question to the best of my ability, not that it was a logical question. If Humy or you want to debate some data you both need to present that data. None of you have done that so it is a stupid question since not all data is the same or relevant.

You and Humy are letting your personal feelings get in the way of a fair debate and you are both using underhanded tactics as a result. Your desperation is enough to confirm I have gotten the better of you here. Come back another day when you have done some REAL and Relevant research. You have wasted my time in a very inconsiderate way!

Originally posted by apathist
Humy, changing one's worldview should not happen easily. Your communication style is counter-productive.

You are right about him. The reason is that he is arrogant and he is also desperate to save face and he is very frustrated because he cannot prove his false claims. He is an embarrassment to REAL science.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
[b]
I answered Humy's question to the best of my ability, /b]

You clearly haven't answered my nor his 2 questions. Who are you trying to kid here? please stop insulting our intelligence.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are playing stupid games with me and I do not appreciate it. Either admit you have no source of info to verify your claim or find one that does......
You and Humy are letting your personal feelings get in the way of a fair debate and you are both using underhanded tactics as a result.

Can someone else on this forum please verify for me that a major finding of this article (Posted again..(http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/345/6199/919.full.pdf) concludes that the recent anthropogenic fraction of global glacier mass loss was 69 ± 24% during the period 1991 to 2010?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Can someone else on this forum please verify for me that a major finding of this article (Posted again..(http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/345/6199/919.full.pdf) concludes that the recent anthropogenic fraction of global glacier mass loss was 69 ± 24% during the period 1991 to 2010?
.

I read it and the most latter part of that extract says exactly that.

see also;

http://www.livescience.com/47360-manmade-glacier-loss.html
"...
Humans have caused roughly a quarter of the globe's glacial loss between 1851 and 2010, and about 69 percent of glacial melting between 1991 and 2010
...
it is really mostly humans that are responsible for the melting glaciers..."

This was also predicted by climate models.

Originally posted by humy
I read it and the most latter part of that extract says exactly that.

see also;

http://www.livescience.com/47360-manmade-glacier-loss.html
"...
Humans have caused roughly a quarter of the globe's glacial loss between 1851 and 2010, and about 69 percent of glacial melting between 1991 and 2010
...
it is really mostly humans that are responsible for the melting glaciers..."

This was also predicted by climate models.

Thanks. It's good to know I'm not crazy or playing stupid games.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Can someone else on this forum please verify for me that a major finding of this article (Posted again..(http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/345/6199/919.full.pdf) concludes that the recent anthropogenic fraction of global glacier mass loss was 69 ± 24% during the period 1991 to 2010?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I clicked on "full text" and nothing was there. Do you really expect anybody to accept a claim without viewing the whole article? If they don't explain how he/she concludes their assertion it isn't science.
Besides, it says 24%. You said 69%.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I clicked on "full text" and nothing was there. Do you really expect anybody to accept a claim without viewing the whole article? If they don't explain how he/she concludes their assertion it isn't science.
Besides, it says 24%. You said 69%.

both links work fine for me and both say 69%

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I clicked on "full text" and nothing was there. Do you really expect anybody to accept a claim without viewing the whole article? If they don't explain how he/she concludes their assertion it isn't science.
Besides, it says 24%. You said 69%.

How is it that you can say "it says 24%" when you are unable to open the article?

The correct (unbroken) link to the article has been posted on this thread at least 3 times. The 69% figure was from their article, and was not something I said.

Honestly, despite all the name calling, I didn't expect this from you. You seemed so confident that there was zero evidence to support anthropogenic global warming, yet when evidence is presented your reply is to pretend the link doesn't work and I am misquoting the authors?

Originally posted by wildgrass
How is it that you can say "it says 24%" when you are unable to open the article?

exactly. This shows he lies.
He also said "I clicked on "full text" and nothing was there".
Yet another lie; there is no explicit "full text" option to click on else that would imply there is an idiotic "partial text" option. Does it make any sense for web designers to make an idiotic default "partial text" option that frustrates readers by blocking readers from viewing all of the text unless they pointlessly have to physically click an explicit "full text" option? Why? And exactly where are those explicit "full text" options in those links and why haven't we ever seen them ourselves let alone have to click them? Who is he trying to kid? He is talking total crap there (and elsewhere) and he must be getting truly desperate to make up such obvious total crap to deny what the various links clearly say what they do.

Lets make it even harder for him to continue with his lies by showing here what each link says so other readers can check that for themselves and independently confirm this is what the links say;

http://www.livescience.com/47360-manmade-glacier-loss.html
"...
during the last 20 years, almost 70 percent of the glacier mass changes were caused by climate change due to humans
..."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919
"...
the anthropogenic signal is detectable with high confidence in glacier mass balance observations during 1991 to 2010, and the anthropogenic fraction of global glacier mass loss during that period has increased to 69 ± 24%.
..."

Originally posted by humy...
He also said "I clicked on "full text" and nothing was there".
Yet another lie; there is no explicit "full text" option to click on ...

Well, the second link for example does go to a synopsis with a "view full text" button.

Originally posted by apathist
Well, the second link for example does go to a synopsis with a "view full text" button.

ho yes, now I see it on the
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919
link.
Just one problem, metal brain still clearly lied because you don't have to click it to view the "69" percent figure as that figure is clearly written ABOVE that button i.e. before you reach it.
Remember, metal brain said;

"...I clicked on "full text" and nothing was there. ...
...Besides, it says 24%. You said 69%..."

So he clearly implies he doesn't see it say 69% and yet he must be able to clearly see for himself that it says 69% WITHOUT having to click any "view full text". In other words, he still is a liar.

Here is what it clearly says WITHOUT having to click any "view full text" button;

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919
"...the anthropogenic signal is detectable with high confidence in glacier mass balance observations during 1991 to 2010, and the anthropogenic fraction of global glacier mass loss during that period has increased to 69 ± 24%...."

I would say the "69" figure is clearly stated there. He must be getting desperate.

In addition, in the first link, it says WITHOUT any full text option;

http://www.livescience.com/47360-manmade-glacier-loss.html
"...
during the last 20 years, almost 70 percent of the glacier mass changes were caused by climate change due to humans
..."
I like to see how he would deny this link says what it says!

oh and there is more!
I just clicked on the "view full text" option to see what I get and what I saw was;

"...
Log in to view full text

As a service to the community this article is available to view for free. Use your via AAAS ID to log in or register for a free account
..."

Now, remember metal brain tried to make out this isn't a scientific website by saying;
"...I clicked on "full text" and nothing was there. Do you really expect anybody to accept a claim without viewing the whole article? If they don't explain how he/she concludes their assertion it isn't science. ..."

err, clearly there is 'something there', so he lies again, and anyone whole wants to view it can do so by registering for FREE, no problem. So it is scientific and metal brain is talking total bullocks, as usual.

deep breath humy

Originally posted by wildgrass
How is it that you can say "it says 24%" when you are unable to open the article?

The correct (unbroken) link to the article has been posted on this thread at least 3 times. The 69% figure was from their article, and was not something I said.

Honestly, despite all the name calling, I didn't expect this from you. You seemed so confident that there was ...[text shortened]... nce is presented your reply is to pretend the link doesn't work and I am misquoting the authors?

I am unable to open the full article. If you are going to post a link at least point out that you have to log into it to view it. I find it very annoying when people incorrectly assume I can view it just because you can. I never lied as humy claims. You are all just reckless assumers.