- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,048
- Reactions
- 12,615
Huh ?
No point in arguing further, I refer you to the AMS's official position. Kindly continue your argument with them, and let us know how you go.
So it's now quite okay for the climate brigade to argue that the stats from opinion polls somehow prove their "science" but no one is allowed to counter argue with opinion polls of their own!
So what exactly has been proven?(Blatant hypocrisy would seem a reasonable summation at this juncture.)
Huh ?
No point in arguing further, I refer you to the AMS's official position. Kindly continue your argument with them, and let us know how you go.
And I refer you to my official position that there is a dearth of scientific proof backing the claims of the climate brigade. One may choose to side with whomsoever one wishes, but let's not pretend that one is blameless when choosing to unquestioningly align with another's agenda.Huh ?
No point in arguing further, I refer you to the AMS's official position. Kindly continue your argument with them, and let us know how you go.
Appeal to authority fallacy.
Did you know 100%of Muslims believe in God because Mohammad said so?
How else would anyone follow any religion?
Christians believe in God and Christ being His one and only Son because..... ?
Buddhists believes in Buddha and other fairies because...?
Pretty sure they believe it on faith and not on actual evidence Sifu.
Exactly my point Grasshopper
You mean like this SirR? To my eye, temperature and CO2 are going in opposite directions, certainly since 1939.
And all that lovely CO2 is supercharging crop yields, helping to feed the Third World.
View attachment 66684
Do you have climate science qualifications Logique ? Degree in atmospheric physics perhaps ?
As I said I"m not going to argue any further. I suggest you present your evidence to a professional body like the BOM, and please let us know their response.
The above all assumes that the chart posted is in fact accurate. I won't claim to know if it is accurate or not, I'm just commenting based on the assumption that it's right
Precisely. If it was lifted from a peer reviewed publication of experts in the field then we give more weight to it, but we also need to know the ifs, buts and maybe's.
Just as looking at a financial chart doesn't tell you the circumstances why stock prices behaved the way they did, you also need to know all the other contributing factors which in a complicated system are multifarious.
Graphs from the nasa site seem to show a different result to that above.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Do you have climate science qualifications Logique ? Degree in atmospheric physics perhaps ?
As I said I"m not going to argue any further. I suggest you present your evidence to a professional body like the BOM, and please let us know their response.
Whilst we're at it, perhaps you could first direct us to the scientific body that has proven the existence of a degree or academic qualification that somehow confers sufficient immunity from error, bias and mendacity as to render the claims of the holder infallible and therefore beyond reproach.
It's really a matter of the odds isn't it ?
I consider a qualified doctor has a better chance of finding out my health status than a Chinese herbalist.
Of course doctors and other qualified people can be wrong, but the more of them that say the same thing increases the chances that they are right and that the mainly unqualified people who argue with them are wrong.
Aha. Now I know where you're coming from! Well, yes I suppose the sun is rotating around our flat earth.
Scientific conjectures aren't rendered proven via ballot!You make less sense every time you post here.
Where are you coming from, that you are right and that NASA, CSIRO, BOM etc are wrong ?
What's your evidence for that ?
You mean like this SirR? To my eye, temperature and CO2 are going in opposite directions, certainly since 1939.
And all that lovely CO2 is supercharging crop yields, helping to feed the Third World.
View attachment 66684
Really Logique ? I don't know where that graph was created but it certainly doesn't reflect the temperatures on Planet Earth.
If it was somehow accurate then clearly global temperatures have fallen in the past 18 years and there has only been maximum of .4 C increase in global temperatures since 1880.
And of course that graph says that temperatures in the late 1930's were in fact higher than current temperatures.
If this was in fact the case, yep the whole global warming issue is overblown and off tack.
But you know it wouldn't quite matter what the graphs say if in fact we wern't seeing the physical evidence of steep warming. In particular the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctica ice.
But it's a lie Logique. A fabrication. I reckon it's a Monkcton/Heartland piece.
The actual figures on global warming are represented by the following graph.
View attachment 66686 (From NASA website
This is in fact a few years old. Currently the world is running at 1.3C over normal. That graph is showing around .7C in 2012. The last few years have been exceptionally warm.
Here we go again on that confounded Merry-Go-Round.
We have gone a full circle of what happened 1000 years ago when the temperatures in the Arctic and Greenland were higher than they are today....But that makes little difference to your thinking...Your mind is set and nothing, I mean nothing will change it....You can come up with all the graphs and data but what happened 1000 years ago is not important or is it?
Any computer literate "SCIENTIST" can develop a graph and make it look extreme for the right people who are willing to pay for it....We see different graphs on this thread which conflict with each other.
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?