Originally posted by Metal Brain


Because you have an overwhelming need to be right even when you are wrong.

Given the fact that, exactly as I just stated, I want such evidence and therefore, by implication, want to be wrong (about man made global warming ), that above assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But, you usually don't.
(Obviously then, I don't have an "overwhelming" desire to be right in particular. I apparently have less desire to be right than you do )

Originally posted by humy
Given the fact that, exactly as I just stated, I want such evidence and therefore, by implication, want to be wrong (about man made global warming ), that above assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But, you usually don't.
(Obviously then, I don't have an "overwhelming" desire to be right in particular. I apparently have less desire to be right than you do )

"I want such evidence"

I can't prove a negative. I'm the one who wants evidence. You are trying to prove a positive so the burden of evidence falls on you, not me. If I say there is no proof to support your extreme global warming (alarmist) assertions who must come up with the evidence? I presented Singer quotes and showed PBS to be my source of information. You have had a long time to prove Singer wrong and have failed. You then falsely accused Singer of lying with no EVIDENCE to back up that slanderous claim. It seems you have gone out of your way to avoid challenging Singer with climate facts and resorted to false claims of corruption instead. It seems your tactic now is to throw a lot of dung in hopes some of it will stick on Singer. Is that the best you can do? If you are so open minded why do you resort to these desperate tactics?

Just because I point out that CO2 lag is a fact don't take it so personally. I know the cause and effect claim of GW alarmists looks weak because of this fact. Surely you know it too. That makes it hard for you to convince people of your alarmism. Are you going to claim the cart is pulling the horse now? It is pretty obvious you have no evidence, so now you are trying to convince us that you are a reasonable guy that just wants evidence. You are now counting on people to be fooled into thinking I should be burdened with proving a negative and that is a normal expectation. Alarmists need to present the evidence, just like Chicken Little should. Should I prove the sky is not falling?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I want such evidence"

I can't prove a negative. I'm the one who wants evidence. You are trying to prove a positive so the burden of evidence falls on you, not me. If I say there is no proof to support your extreme global warming (alarmist) assertions who must come up with the evidence? I presented Singer quotes and showed PBS to be my source of infor ...[text shortened]... to present the evidence, just like Chicken Little should. Should I prove the sky is not falling?

So you didn't even read the post about the positive measurement, not lab experiments but real measurements of CO2 causing warming? So take a look at this one, from NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It is well known CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do you deny that also?

Look at the heading "Causes' also.

You can see Mars with a thin atmosphere of mainly CO2 but too thin to stop the cold.

But look at Venus. WAY too much CO2, Venus is about 900 degrees F. And its atmosphere is almost totally CO2 with a bit of sulfuric acid thrown in for good measure.

If you can't see the evidence pointing to climate change you are just in denial and are more akin to the young Earthers who cannot get out of their brainwashing, convinced the Earth is 6000 years old no matter WHAT the evidence says.

Climate change evidence doesn't come from JUST measuring heat with a thermometer. There are a dozen separate scientific disciplines that all point to the same thing: Climate is heating up, oceans already HAVE gotten deeper, coastlines going inland as we speak, there are villages in Alaska losing all their sea side homes RIGHT NOW not some projection of future loss.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are trying to prove a positive

How can I be "trying" to prove the already proven scientific facts? You are talking complete nonsense as usual.
It is like saying I am "trying" to prove the Earth is round to a (hypothetical ) person denying that it is.

The burden of proof falls on you to disprove what is already apparently proven, not us.

I'm the one who wants evidence.

you mean hypothetical evidence against man made global warming (MMGW) I just said I want? -that is the only way your above assertion can make any sense given the fact we have already shown you conclusive evidence for MMGW and you have shown us no evidence against MMGW. Still waiting....
Singer's assertions have already been systematically debunked and he showed no such evidence that I would like to see for I want there to be NO MMGW.

Originally posted by humy
How can I be "trying" to prove the already proven scientific facts? You are talking complete nonsense as usual.
It is like saying I am "trying" to prove the Earth is round to a (hypothetical ) person denying that it is.

The burden of proof falls on you to disprove what is already apparently proven, not us.


[quote] I'm the one who wants evidence. [ ...[text shortened]... debunked and he showed no such evidence that I would like to see for I want there to be NO MMGW.

"Singer's assertions have already been systematically debunked and he showed no such evidence that I would like to see for I want there to be NO MMGW."

What is your source of information? Is this another lie? I suspect it is.

The scientific facts do not support your opinion. What you consider scientific fact is alarmist nonsense that few climate scientists consider fact. Your belief that climate scientists agree with you is FALSE. Most climate scientists would not agree with your fringe alarmist views.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you didn't even read the post about the positive measurement, not lab experiments but real measurements of CO2 causing warming? So take a look at this one, from NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It is well known CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do you deny that also?

Look at the heading "Causes' also.

You can see Mars with a thin atmosphere o ...[text shortened]... villages in Alaska losing all their sea side homes RIGHT NOW not some projection of future loss.

Did you read that warming comes first and then CO2 levels increase later? You do understand cause and effect, right? Are you dyslexic?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Did you read that warming comes first and then CO2 levels increase later? You do understand cause and effect, right? Are you dyslexic?

Exactly which part of:

"...while CO2 doesn't usually initialize the start of each of the past short-term warming trends, it amplified each past short-term warming trend after each initialization...."

do you fail to understand?

Can you not understand the extremely simple concept of something not necessarily starting a process but rather generally causing it to amplify once it starts?

Temperature variation from natural sources initially causes the start of a warming period (like it does every few decades ) that wouldn't have lasted long and wouldn't have lasted to the present day if it wasn't for man made CO2 release but, thanks to our man made CO2 release, was amplified so to continue to the present day.
Thus, without necessarily initializing the vary start of any warming period, the extra CO2 causes global warming by causing greater global warming than would have occurred if there was no such extra CO2 -no violation of causality required.
Understand? if not, see
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exacerbate
and
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amplify

Something can, without contradiction, amplify/exacerbate something else without causing that something else to initialize.

A lightning strike starts a small fire. Then you throw on gasoline on the fire. Then the fire becomes much worse than what you would expect if no gasoline was thrown on. But the gasoline wasn't what caused the start of the fire. So the gasoline didn't cause the fire to become greater in magnitude and thus worse?

Originally posted by humy
Exactly which part of:

"...while CO2 doesn't usually initialize the start of each of the past short-term warming trends, it amplified each past short-term warming trend after each initialization...."

do you fail to understand?

Can you not understand the extremely simple concept of something not necessarily starting a process but rather generally causi ...[text shortened]... e fire. So the gasoline didn't cause the fire to become greater in magnitude and thus worse?[/b]

"Can you not understand the extremely simple concept of something not necessarily starting a process but rather generally causing it to amplify once it starts?"

Yes, I do. I never indicated otherwise. Your problem is that it is nothing new. It has always been that way. Because of that there is Co2 from burning fossil fuels and there is Co2 increase from the natural warming that started before much fossil fuels were burned. If you can't account for which causes what amount you can't possibly know there is a problem at all, let alone a problem that needs you to sound an alarm pointing to figuratively speaking) a disease and not a cure.

Not only do you not have a solution for what you are urging everyone to panic about, you turn a blind eye to the fact CO2 levels are not as high as they have been naturally in the past.....and we are still here on a planet that supports a lot of species. What is your problem?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Did you read that warming comes first and then CO2 levels increase later? You do understand cause and effect, right? Are you dyslexic?

"Singer's assertions have already been systematically debunked and he showed no such evidence that I would like to see for I want there to be NO MMGW."

What is your source of information? Is this another lie? I suspect it is. Since you avoided the question once I am sure it is another lie. Your dishonesty is being noticed and is evidence of how people lie and slander others simply to save face. You are helping my case considerably just by being yourself.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Because of that there is Co2 from burning fossil fuels and there is Co2 increase from the natural warming that started before much fossil fuels were burned. If you can't account for which causes what amount...

So now you deny climate scientists can give a reasonable estimate of what proportion of atmospheric CO2 comes from man made sources?

If so, since it isn't too difficult for them to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of CO2 released from the combination of deforestation and burning fossil fuels (do you even deny that as well!? if so, why would it be so hard for them to make a reasonable estimate this within, say, and lets be generous here; 10% accuracy? ) , thus this is pure nonsense. It is simply a matter of collecting the relevant data and then doing the maths.

If not, your assertion that "you can't possibly know there is a problem" hasn't even got a bad premise let alone a good one.

Originally posted by humy
So now you deny climate scientists can give a reasonable estimate of what proportion of atmospheric CO2 comes from man made sources?

If so, since it isn't too difficult for them to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of CO2 released from the combination of deforestation and burning fossil fuels (do you even deny that as well!? if so, why would it be so ...[text shortened]... "you can't possibly know there is a problem" hasn't even got a bad premise let alone a good one.

What is your source of information? You make all these claims but never back them up. Are you making it up as you go along again?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What is your source of information?

Does that information include information that climate scientists can give a reasonable estimate of what proportion of atmospheric CO2 comes from man made sources? YES OR NO?
If NO, your assertion that "you can't possibly know there is a problem" is without premise, not even a bad one.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What is your source of information? You make all these claims but never back them up. Are you making it up as you go along again?

So why are YOU not researching the issue to find out for yourself? You constantly say 'what is your source'. You can google things just as well as the rest of us. Do your OWN searching for a change. Use your OWN brain for a change and not just listen blindly to whoever has programmed you to behave in the way you do, you know, the part where your head is firmly up your ass ignoring all the signs around you.

Did you not see the graph of the CO2 concentrations that goes back hundreds of thousands of years? You haven't commented on that one or taken the time to poo poo the science behind it.

What, it is so worthless as to be completely beneath your esteemed notice?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So why are YOU not researching the issue to find out for yourself? You constantly say 'what is your source'. You can google things just as well as the rest of us. Do your OWN searching for a change. Use your OWN brain for a change and not just listen blindly to whoever has programmed you to behave in the way you do, you know, the part where your head is fir ...[text shortened]... cience behind it.

What, it is so worthless as to be completely beneath your esteemed notice?

I'm calling him a liar. Either that or he is relying on the unreliable again and is afraid I will prove it is bunk. Either way he is being evasive and you are an apologist for his deceptiveness. He is too much of a coward to give his source of information. That is evident.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So why are YOU not researching the issue to find out for yourself? You constantly say 'what is your source'. You can google things just as well as the rest of us. Do your OWN searching for a change. Use your OWN brain for a change and not just listen blindly to whoever has programmed you to behave in the way you do, you know, the part where your head is fir ...[text shortened]... cience behind it.

What, it is so worthless as to be completely beneath your esteemed notice?

"Did you not see the graph of the CO2 concentrations that goes back hundreds of thousands of years?"

That's all? I prefer this graph. Look at the eocene epoch, then the Pleistocene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligocene#mediaviewer/File:All_palaeotemps.png