Without human CO2 emissions the global temperature trend would be negative. That indicates quite heavily that human activity is responsible for all of the warming.
Read the IPCC reports. Your questions have been answered. Either you are really, really lazy or you just don't care to know the answers.
You are confusing "cherry-picked surface temperature data" with "all of the data". You seem hell-bent on not learning anything, as you have already made up your mind without evidence. That is about as close to religion as you can get.
I hope you don't have kids, as they're going to not look kindly on people who share your lazy, nonsensical proud-to-be-stupid attitude.
Who's the alarmist now? Hint: You. Your questions have been answered - that you assume they haven't shows us just how little you actually care, and how wonderful a Glenn Beck impersonation you are doing. You are asking questions and don't even care to hear the answers.
That's a terrible post, even for you. You really think you are proving anything by posting false claims and using them as evidence for your false conclusions?
The only thing you demonstrated is that you are either scientifically illiterate, hell-bent on deception, or both.
So you are saying that CO2 has no effect on warming? Really? Hint: If you are scientifically illiterate, it doesn't help for you to goatse your ignorance all over slashdot for people to point at and laugh.
CO2 is the main driver of warming. Without human activity, CO2 levels would be decreasing, as the natural sinks for CO2 are greater than the sources. We know it's industrial CO2 emissions which are driving warming. We know this. You simply stating that it's erroneous is pathetic, as you have no evidence to support your claim, yet you think your claim somehow trumps the actual scientific findings.
You should probably read about what increases in sea level mean to storm surges. You'd probably not spout something so ridiculous if you did. It's like you're desperate to not learn.
You are the one who thinks that's all they use to figure out historical temperatures. Strangely enough, the scientists figured that out before you. That's why they use many different sources to figure this out.
With every post you are loudly proclaiming your ignorance. You might as well be saying "I don't know how this works, but I spent 30 seconds, and because I am clearly awesome, I will now explain how all these scientists are incorrect". You are clutching at straws, and it's sad. I feel sad for the society which created you, for the educators who failed you, and for the future you have no problem leaving for others who were not so intellectually lazy as you appear so desperate to be.
Funnily enough, climatologists know all of that, yet they still have enough evidence to show you are entirely incorrect, or have missed the point entirely.
I have no idea why you think you can debunk an entire field of science using your poorly-constructed posts, and a very patchy understanding of the topic at hand. The hubris is strong with this one!
Hint: If you are attempting to refute an entire field of science, at least try to cite a single peer-reviewed source which agrees with you. Otherwise you are indistinguishable from a scientific illiterate tilting at windmills.
You seem to be rather confused... You can listen to NASA all you want, but if you don't understand what they're saying, you'll keep on trotting out nonsense for people to read, all the while hurting your reputation...
Plus relying on one study isn't the most rational thing for one to do. You really are not helping yourself with these statements.
I can't believe someone wrote that for people to see, expecting to make some sort of a point apart from "I am terrible at this whole science thing, but I don't like what scientists are saying, so I'll fart all over my keyboard and hope some sort of argument falls out".
Your argument isn't even internally consistent. Your descendants will laugh at you, and condemn your selfish, intentionally-uninformed laziness.
Land which has been scraped clean by glaciers or which will turn into marshes when the ice melts, which has no infrastructure in place for farming, and the inhabitants no experience of farming.
I think you meant "pay the thousands and thousands of dollars for every attempt to file" instead of "sign the fucking guest book". Don't pretend it's a quick trip to the DMV to immigrate legally. As long as money can flow across that border more easily than people there will be illegal immigration. You are calling to protect the status quo which guarantees illegal immigration will continue. This is not difficult to understand.
I think you meant "intrinsically" or "without exception" as opposed to "arbitrarily", unless you were trying to point out the complete lack of an argument in your argument...
Each post you make paints you as a bitter, sad, lonely, hateful person. It's not good reading - like a cry for help from someone who knows it's too late to meaningfully redress the balance in their life, that they are doomed to sail their lonesome, twisted course to the grave. I hope that's not the case, but I suspect it is.
I really don't know why I should listen to you - you have frequently shown yourself to hold irrational beliefs based on abject nonsense. If you think your religious beliefs are based on facts, why on Earth should anyone listen to you about anything? Show us your credentials, please - anything as to why we should assume you are thinking rationally about this subject when have demonstrated your capacity to believe fiction, even to desire it when it makes you feel better...
There he goes again! Ladies and Gentlemen, your Xenophobe-in-Residence, Chrisq! Watch as he maligns over a billion people with his rapier-sharp ignorance! Stare in wonder as he shows everyone just how little he knows and how quick he is to judge! Be amazed by his effortless, unlimited hubris!
Why can't we talk about the MWP? It was highly localized and relatively short lived. It was followed by a little ice age. It fits in perfectly well with what we know about climatology.
I noticed you didn't link to any peer reviewed paper agreeing with your position, and whether anyone needs grants for any length of time has no bearing on the veracity of their findings of the subject at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Deserts are not always hot, so I don't know what your point is. I'm beginning to think you don't know either.
Without human CO2 emissions the global temperature trend would be negative. That indicates quite heavily that human activity is responsible for all of the warming.
Read the IPCC reports. Your questions have been answered. Either you are really, really lazy or you just don't care to know the answers.
You are confusing "cherry-picked surface temperature data" with "all of the data". You seem hell-bent on not learning anything, as you have already made up your mind without evidence. That is about as close to religion as you can get.
I hope you don't have kids, as they're going to not look kindly on people who share your lazy, nonsensical proud-to-be-stupid attitude.
Who's the alarmist now? Hint: You. Your questions have been answered - that you assume they haven't shows us just how little you actually care, and how wonderful a Glenn Beck impersonation you are doing. You are asking questions and don't even care to hear the answers.
That's a terrible post, even for you. You really think you are proving anything by posting false claims and using them as evidence for your false conclusions?
The only thing you demonstrated is that you are either scientifically illiterate, hell-bent on deception, or both.
So you are saying that CO2 has no effect on warming? Really? Hint: If you are scientifically illiterate, it doesn't help for you to goatse your ignorance all over slashdot for people to point at and laugh.
CO2 is the main driver of warming. Without human activity, CO2 levels would be decreasing, as the natural sinks for CO2 are greater than the sources. We know it's industrial CO2 emissions which are driving warming. We know this. You simply stating that it's erroneous is pathetic, as you have no evidence to support your claim, yet you think your claim somehow trumps the actual scientific findings.
What is wrong in your head?
You should probably read about what increases in sea level mean to storm surges. You'd probably not spout something so ridiculous if you did. It's like you're desperate to not learn.
As AmiMoJo attempted to point out to you: a lot more comes out of the back of a car than just greenhouse gasses.
You are the one who thinks that's all they use to figure out historical temperatures. Strangely enough, the scientists figured that out before you. That's why they use many different sources to figure this out.
With every post you are loudly proclaiming your ignorance. You might as well be saying "I don't know how this works, but I spent 30 seconds, and because I am clearly awesome, I will now explain how all these scientists are incorrect". You are clutching at straws, and it's sad. I feel sad for the society which created you, for the educators who failed you, and for the future you have no problem leaving for others who were not so intellectually lazy as you appear so desperate to be.
Funnily enough, climatologists know all of that, yet they still have enough evidence to show you are entirely incorrect, or have missed the point entirely.
I have no idea why you think you can debunk an entire field of science using your poorly-constructed posts, and a very patchy understanding of the topic at hand. The hubris is strong with this one!
It appears even understanding history and the methods used is beyond your ability, as you appear to have just made up your own versions of both.
Hint: If you are attempting to refute an entire field of science, at least try to cite a single peer-reviewed source which agrees with you. Otherwise you are indistinguishable from a scientific illiterate tilting at windmills.
You seem to be rather confused... You can listen to NASA all you want, but if you don't understand what they're saying, you'll keep on trotting out nonsense for people to read, all the while hurting your reputation...
Plus relying on one study isn't the most rational thing for one to do. You really are not helping yourself with these statements.
All you said is "I don't understand any of this". Thanks for playing.
I can't believe someone wrote that for people to see, expecting to make some sort of a point apart from "I am terrible at this whole science thing, but I don't like what scientists are saying, so I'll fart all over my keyboard and hope some sort of argument falls out".
Your argument isn't even internally consistent. Your descendants will laugh at you, and condemn your selfish, intentionally-uninformed laziness.
Land which has been scraped clean by glaciers or which will turn into marshes when the ice melts, which has no infrastructure in place for farming, and the inhabitants no experience of farming.
Those are not the trends, and what do you mean by "ice mass"? Sea ice or land ice? The two mean radically different things for global warming.
I think you meant "pay the thousands and thousands of dollars for every attempt to file" instead of "sign the fucking guest book". Don't pretend it's a quick trip to the DMV to immigrate legally. As long as money can flow across that border more easily than people there will be illegal immigration. You are calling to protect the status quo which guarantees illegal immigration will continue. This is not difficult to understand.
I think you meant "intrinsically" or "without exception" as opposed to "arbitrarily", unless you were trying to point out the complete lack of an argument in your argument...
Each post you make paints you as a bitter, sad, lonely, hateful person. It's not good reading - like a cry for help from someone who knows it's too late to meaningfully redress the balance in their life, that they are doomed to sail their lonesome, twisted course to the grave. I hope that's not the case, but I suspect it is.
I really don't know why I should listen to you - you have frequently shown yourself to hold irrational beliefs based on abject nonsense. If you think your religious beliefs are based on facts, why on Earth should anyone listen to you about anything? Show us your credentials, please - anything as to why we should assume you are thinking rationally about this subject when have demonstrated your capacity to believe fiction, even to desire it when it makes you feel better...
There he goes again! Ladies and Gentlemen, your Xenophobe-in-Residence, Chrisq! Watch as he maligns over a billion people with his rapier-sharp ignorance! Stare in wonder as he shows everyone just how little he knows and how quick he is to judge! Be amazed by his effortless, unlimited hubris!
Why can't we talk about the MWP? It was highly localized and relatively short lived. It was followed by a little ice age. It fits in perfectly well with what we know about climatology.
As there are examples of Muslims demonstrating humanity and tolerance, you are patently wrong, and were inhumane and intolerant in the process.
I noticed you didn't link to any peer reviewed paper agreeing with your position, and whether anyone needs grants for any length of time has no bearing on the veracity of their findings of the subject at hand.