Would that be the inconvenient truth about Al Gore being the major shareholder of a company that trades carbon credits and he stood to make millions of dollars out of? Would that be the same Al Gore whose mansion uses 20 times more electricity and gas than the average home in Nashville? Apparently he purchased carbon credits from his own company to offset his carbon footprint. LOL ! Would that be the same inconvenient truth?
Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.
Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms,"
OWG, I don't understand why you expect to see one study that indisputably proves the claim you are making. No field of knowledge progresses like that.
In many ways the development of climate science is like the development of chaos theory. There's a very readable account in James Gleick's book "Chaos", which shows how individuals and groups working in apparently unrelated fields gradually came to see a deep connection between phenomena they were studying in different ways through data that included population numbers, the Red Spot on Jupiter, cotton prices, turbulence, heart rhythms, and an early computer model of weather.
Similarly, the understanding that human activity is driving climate change has developed over nearly 200 years.........
That's why Basilio refers to multiple lines of evidence: release of fossil carbon through human activity can explain the data from all these different fields of study.
The onus is now on those who dispute this explanation to produce a better one.
Hear, hear. Funny how the people claiming that climate change is caused by humans have research to back their claims, but those opposing say, "No. You're wrong."
And 5 minutes on Google can lead to 55 hours of followup5 minutes on Google can produce various results...
<snip>
And here's the caption as Monte Hieb shows it. He repeats Crowley’s caption and adds a link directly to the graphic in Crowley's paper: Example of regional variations in surface air temperature for the last 1000 years, estimated from a variety of sources, including temperature-sensitive tree growth indices and written records of various kinds, largely from western Europe and eastern North America. Shown are changes in regional temperature in ° C, from the baseline value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic RecordEarth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed the "Little Ice Age." This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing seasons, and a drier climate. The decline in global temperatures was a modest 1/2 ° C, but the effects of this global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes.
Monte Hieb’s interpretation of the graphic - that it shows something about global temperature - is contrary to what he source says about it at least twice. That worries me, but one case could be an oversight or a misunderstanding so I looked at some more. I can post about them separately if people are interested, but for now I’ll just say that in my opinion Monte Hieb has been misleading in his use of another writer’s work and in his implication of agreement between himself and Crowley.A prominent feature found in some regions during the first centuries of the present millennium is a time of particularly mild temperatures, reaching maximum warmth in the 12th to 13th centuries. In some locations at that time, surface conditions may have been similar to today. However, it is not at all clear whether this climatic feature occurred at the same time in all places””an important distinction from the somewhat more uniform pattern in recent decades.
And now Thomas Crowley:Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no.
Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.
By following up the sources that Monte Hieb has cited, I can see for myself that he has not addressed what they actually say and I can do that even without knowing much about the subject. Of course, many articles don’t cite their sources and Hieb deserves credit for the citations and links he provided. But in my view his misuse of their material makes his whole article unreliable.The net impression of this evaluation of "things past" is that the future climate promises to look very different than the present and, perhaps more disconcertingly, possibly unlike anything known before.
That's the way. Ignore the other points, take what you want and mock the person presenting the argument..
I can't respond to your whole post at the moment, but just quickly I'd like to point out that "Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming" is not the hypothesis. It's a result that has emerged from various tested hypotheses.No, it is not. The hypothesis is "Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming." It is this hypothesis which must be proven or disproven. So far it has not been proven correct. If it had been, there would be at least one peer reviewed study available. There is not. This is why OWG and others are asking for a link to one such study.
No matter what I say now will significantly alter your views, so I'm not going to bother trying.
As soon as I saw "Exhibit C" I decided not to bother with A and B. II, that film was discredited a long time ago.
I can't respond to your whole post at the moment, but just quickly I'd like to point out that "Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming" is not the hypothesis. It's a result that has emerged from various tested hypotheses.
If human CO2 emissions were not causing global warming, that fact would be evidence against the established (i.e. tested) understanding of such things as how heat moves, how shells form, how insect species interact. Not just one of those things - all of them. That's why scientists talk about global warming as being like gravity.
..........The inconvenient truth link was just the icing on the cake wasnt it!
Exhibit B: (Writing) "Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear scientific evidence that human activity-and very little else- is warming the world's oceans.
The Scripps' report, coming from one of the world's leading ocean research institutions, may turn out to be the "smoking gun" that finally establishes the link between greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and other pollutants) and the increase in temperature worldwide, or global warming.
The authors contend that their results clearly indicate that the oceans' warming is produced "anthropogenically," i.e. by human activities. The study, conducted by Tim Barnett and David Pierce, along with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), used a combination of computer models and real-world "observed" data to capture signals of the penetration of greenhouse gas-influenced warming in the oceans, a Scripps bulletin stated.
[/B]
i felt the same way when i read his post (at 1am after a long arvo shift)... but i read it anyway, and came to the conclusion obi-wan here just wanted to post something too show how clever he was and how dumb us "unbeleivers" are... 'the spoon fed' line put my back up straight away....
his 'keeling curve' link was actually correct in its content,
I think so. How would you go about testing a hypothesis such as "Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming."?Yes, that is the hypothesis. Ask any scientist. Do you know what a hypothesis is?
Possibly, but show me why.Now you are talking absolute nonsense!
(My bolds)
With any theory, the responsibility of proof belongs to the theorist.
It does not have to be done by anyone.In science you need to test the theory and that can be done by anyone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?