Global Warming and the Environment

[WinePusher]

It's bad enough when individuals deny reality or threaten others, but when such views are widespread, that's when its damaging.

Examples:

denying global warming.

Questions:

Generally speaking, what are the main concerns of environmentalists and how should these concerns be dealt with?

Is denial of Global Warming a denial of reality?

[chestertonrules]

Chesterton your argument thus has no more quality then the moon landing deniers here or the flat earth folks here. I'm surprised that people are still trying to point out you haven't convincingly stated your case or supported your position.

You've ignored the claims you can't rebut or responded with old, biased, intentionally manipulative data and when these tactics are pointed out your response is, "nuh-uh".

You've violated the rules and been reprimanded at least a half dozen times for failing to substantiate your claims, proof here.

It's time to offer something of substance, something relevant and peer reviewed. Try to refrain from denial, manipulation and deflection, or just admit that you don't have evidence to support your position. If you want to save face you can even end with the word "yet".

In the mean time, I eagerly await your 1-2 sentence reply.

Wait no more.(I'll even throw in a bonus sentence)

My response is simple and yet to be refuted. There is no causative correlation between changing CO2 levels and temperature.

CO2 levels rise and fall but there is no historical evidence to demonstrate that this changes the average temperature of the planet.

[nursebenjamin]

Chesterton your argument thus has no more quality then the moon landing deniers ...

It's time to offer something of substance, something relevant and peer reviewed. Try to refrain from denial, manipulation and deflection, or just admit that you don't have evidence to support your position. If you want to save face you can even end with the word "yet". ...

... My response is simple and yet to be refuted. There is no causative correlation between changing CO2 levels and temperature.

Well, duh. Causative correlation doesn't exist.[1] However, there is a correlation, and the cause of both the changing atmospheric CO2 level and changing global average temperature is well known.

CO2 levels rise and fall but there is no historical evidence to demonstrate that this changes the average temperature of the planet.

Wrong! Here's the evidence:
[center][/center]
And since this evidence has been known for more than a century, I guess one could say that the evidence is historical.

[chestertonrules]

Chesterton your argument thus has no more quality then the moon landing deniers ...

It's time to offer something of substance, something relevant and peer reviewed. Try to refrain from denial, manipulation and deflection, or just admit that you don't have evidence to support your position. If you want to save face you can even end with the word "yet". ...

... My response is simple and yet to be refuted. There is no causative correlation between changing CO2 levels and temperature.

Well, duh. Causative correlation doesn't exist.[1] However, there is a correlation, and the cause of both the changing atmospheric CO2 level and changing global average temperature is well known.

CO2 levels rise and fall but there is no historical evidence to demonstrate that this changes the average temperature of the planet.

Wrong! Here's the evidence:
[center][/center]
And since this evidence has been known for more than a century, I guess one could say that the evidence is historical.

That is not historical evidence.


We can clearly see in the historical data that changing CO2 has no causative impact on our temperatures.

Sometimes temperatures are rising when %CO2 is rising, and sometimes temperatures are falling when %CO2 is rising.

[Goat]

[

That is not historical evidence.


We can clearly see in the historical data that changing CO2 has no causative impact on our temperatures.

Sometimes temperatures are rising when %CO2 is rising, and sometimes temperatures are falling when %CO2 is rising.

It was pointed out how your source lied about that.. do you care to try to provide evidence for that from a valid source, in other words, a peer reviewed journal that did not cherry pick the data, and mesh together different measurements to provide false data?

[chestertonrules]

[

That is not historical evidence.


We can clearly see in the historical data that changing CO2 has no causative impact on our temperatures.

Sometimes temperatures are rising when %CO2 is rising, and sometimes temperatures are falling when %CO2 is rising.

It was pointed out how your source lied about that.. do you care to try to provide evidence for that from a valid source, in other words, a peer reviewed journal that did not cherry pick the data, and mesh together different measurements to provide false data?

Which fact are you denying?

[nursebenjamin]

... Wrong! Here's the evidence:
[center][/center]
And since this evidence has been known for more than a century, I guess one could say that the evidence is historical.

That is not historical evidence.

Duh! But it is scientific evidence and this evidence has been known for a century and a half. Energy leaves the surface of the earth mainly in the infrared frequencies. Greenhouse gases absorb and reemit energy in the infrared spectrum. How’s this for evidence of recent anthropogenic greenhouse warming:
[center]
Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
From Harries, et al. Nature, 2001, [Source][/center]

We can clearly see in the historical data that changing CO2 has no causative impact on our temperatures.

This could only true if one ignores the vast body scientific evidence. FYI, much of this evidence has been presented to you within this thread. I encourage you to read this entire thread again, and specifically post #212, before making another post here.

Sometimes temperatures are rising when %CO2 is rising, and sometimes temperatures are falling when %CO2 is rising.

And sometimes an airplane flies even when gravity is pulling the plane towards earth; sometimes planes fall out of the sky. This is because more than one force acts upon the plane.

Likewise, the radiative forcing of CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Whether the climate warms or cools depends on the net radiative balance at earth's surface and in the atmosphere. Positive radiative forcings lead to more energy at earth’s surface and have a warming effect (and obviously negative radiative forcings lead to less energy at earth’s surface and have a cooling effect). The radiative forcing of CO2 is always positive, even if the net radiative balance for a specific time frame is negative. We've gone over this fact again and again and again, Ad nauseam.

...do you care to try to provide evidence for that from a valid source, in other words, a peer reviewed journal that did not cherry pick the data, and mesh together different measurements to provide false data?

Which fact are you denying?

I believe that Goat was saying that your posts are nothing but a gish gallop of unsubstantiated claims. You are clearly receiving your information on this subject from people that are obvious frauds (re. almost all of the links you provided in this thread) and are ignoring everything that is coming from the scientific community. Do you actually care whether or not your understanding of climate science is based on reality? I asked this question before, and you failed to answer. I believe that the answer to this question is an obvious no; therefore, please forgive me if I fail to respond to any further nonsense that you may post in the future. If you would like to have an adult conversation on this subject, how about re-reading this entire thread and, at the very least, acknowledging points made within this post?

[chestertonrules]

... Wrong! Here's the evidence:
[center][/center]
And since this evidence has been known for more than a century, I guess one could say that the evidence is historical.

That is not historical evidence.

Duh! But it is scientific evidence and this evidence has been known for a century and a half. Energy leaves the surface of the earth mainly in the infrared frequencies. Greenhouse gases absorb and reemit energy in the infrared spectrum. How’s this for evidence of recent anthropogenic greenhouse warming:
[center]
Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
From Harries, et al. Nature, 2001, [Source][/center]

We can clearly see in the historical data that changing CO2 has no causative impact on our temperatures.

This could only true if one ignores the vast body scientific evidence. FYI, much of this evidence has been presented to you within this thread. I encourage you to read this entire thread again, and specifically post #212, before making another post here.

Sometimes temperatures are rising when %CO2 is rising, and sometimes temperatures are falling when %CO2 is rising.

And sometimes an airplane flies even when gravity is pulling the plane towards earth; sometimes planes fall out of the sky. This is because more than one force acts upon the plane.

Likewise, the radiative forcing of CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Whether the climate warms or cools depends on the net radiative balance at earth's surface and in the atmosphere. Positive radiative forcings lead to more energy at earth’s surface and have a warming effect (and obviously negative radiative forcings lead to less energy at earth’s surface and have a cooling effect). The radiative forcing of CO2 is always positive, even if the net radiative balance for a specific time frame is negative. We've gone over this fact again and again and again, Ad nauseam.

...do you care to try to provide evidence for that from a valid source, in other words, a peer reviewed journal that did not cherry pick the data, and mesh together different measurements to provide false data?

Which fact are you denying?

I believe that Goat was saying that your posts are nothing but a gish gallop of unsubstantiated claims. You are clearly receiving your information on this subject from people that are obvious frauds (re. almost all of the links you provided in this thread) and are ignoring everything that is coming from the scientific community. Do you actually care whether or not your understanding of climate science is based on reality? I asked this question before, and you failed to answer. I believe that the answer to this question is an obvious yes; therefore, please forgive me if I fail to respond to any further nonsense that you may post in the future. If you would like to have an adult conversation on this subject, how about re-reading this entire thread and, at the very least, acknowledging points made within this post?

You know as well as I do that you have no evidence to support a causative correlation between historical CO2 levels and the temperature of the earth.

Give it up. Your irrelevant filibuster accomplishes nothing.

[nursebenjamin]

... Wrong! Here's the evidence:
[center][/center]
And since this evidence has been known for more than a century, I guess one could say that the evidence is historical.

That is not historical evidence.

Duh! But it is scientific evidence and this evidence has been known for a century and a half. Energy leaves the surface of the earth mainly in the infrared frequencies. Greenhouse gases absorb and reemit energy in the infrared spectrum. How’s this for evidence of recent anthropogenic greenhouse warming:
[center]
Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
From Harries, et al. Nature, 2001, [Source][/center]

We can clearly see in the historical data that changing CO2 has no causative impact on our temperatures.

This could only true if one ignores the vast body scientific evidence. FYI, much of this evidence has been presented to you within this thread. I encourage you to read this entire thread again, and specifically post #212, before making another post here.

Sometimes temperatures are rising when %CO2 is rising, and sometimes temperatures are falling when %CO2 is rising.

And sometimes an airplane flies even when gravity is pulling the plane towards earth; sometimes planes fall out of the sky. This is because more than one force acts upon the plane.

Likewise, the radiative forcing of CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Whether the climate warms or cools depends on the net radiative balance at earth's surface and in the atmosphere. Positive radiative forcings lead to more energy at earth’s surface and have a warming effect (and obviously negative radiative forcings lead to less energy at earth’s surface and have a cooling effect). The radiative forcing of CO2 is always positive, even if the net radiative balance for a specific time frame is negative. We've gone over this fact again and again and again, Ad nauseam.

...do you care to try to provide evidence for that from a valid source, in other words, a peer reviewed journal that did not cherry pick the data, and mesh together different measurements to provide false data?

Which fact are you denying?

I believe that Goat was saying that your posts are nothing but a gish gallop of unsubstantiated claims. You are clearly receiving your information on this subject from people that are obvious frauds (re. almost all of the links you provided in this thread) and are ignoring everything that is coming from the scientific community. Do you actually care whether or not your understanding of climate science is based on reality? I asked this question before, and you failed to answer. I believe that the answer to this question is an obvious yes; therefore, please forgive me if I fail to respond to any further nonsense that you may post in the future. If you would like to have an adult conversation on this subject, how about re-reading this entire thread and, at the very least, acknowledging points made within this post?

You know as well as I do that you have no evidence to support a causative correlation between historical CO2 levels and the temperature of the earth.

Give it up. Your irrelevant filibuster accomplishes nothing.

Thanks for this latest post. You've demonstrated again that (A) you don't care if your understanding of climate science is based on reality; (B) if your posts make sense; and (C) your only interest here is to troll.

Again, there is no such thing as "causative correlation". Not only is this a term you've made up, it is based on a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Moreover, there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures, and the cause of both the changing atmospheric CO2 level and changing global average temperature is well known. Please review this thread if you seek more information on this.

[chestertonrules]

... Wrong! Here's the evidence:
[center][/center]
And since this evidence has been known for more than a century, I guess one could say that the evidence is historical.

That is not historical evidence.

Duh! But it is scientific evidence and this evidence has been known for a century and a half. Energy leaves the surface of the earth mainly in the infrared frequencies. Greenhouse gases absorb and reemit energy in the infrared spectrum. How’s this for evidence of recent anthropogenic greenhouse warming:
[center]
Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
From Harries, et al. Nature, 2001, [Source][/center]

We can clearly see in the historical data that changing CO2 has no causative impact on our temperatures.

This could only true if one ignores the vast body scientific evidence. FYI, much of this evidence has been presented to you within this thread. I encourage you to read this entire thread again, and specifically post #212, before making another post here.

Sometimes temperatures are rising when %CO2 is rising, and sometimes temperatures are falling when %CO2 is rising.

And sometimes an airplane flies even when gravity is pulling the plane towards earth; sometimes planes fall out of the sky. This is because more than one force acts upon the plane.

Likewise, the radiative forcing of CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Whether the climate warms or cools depends on the net radiative balance at earth's surface and in the atmosphere. Positive radiative forcings lead to more energy at earth’s surface and have a warming effect (and obviously negative radiative forcings lead to less energy at earth’s surface and have a cooling effect). The radiative forcing of CO2 is always positive, even if the net radiative balance for a specific time frame is negative. We've gone over this fact again and again and again, Ad nauseam.

...do you care to try to provide evidence for that from a valid source, in other words, a peer reviewed journal that did not cherry pick the data, and mesh together different measurements to provide false data?

Which fact are you denying?

I believe that Goat was saying that your posts are nothing but a gish gallop of unsubstantiated claims. You are clearly receiving your information on this subject from people that are obvious frauds (re. almost all of the links you provided in this thread) and are ignoring everything that is coming from the scientific community. Do you actually care whether or not your understanding of climate science is based on reality? I asked this question before, and you failed to answer. I believe that the answer to this question is an obvious yes; therefore, please forgive me if I fail to respond to any further nonsense that you may post in the future. If you would like to have an adult conversation on this subject, how about re-reading this entire thread and, at the very least, acknowledging points made within this post?

You know as well as I do that you have no evidence to support a causative correlation between historical CO2 levels and the temperature of the earth.

Give it up. Your irrelevant filibuster accomplishes nothing.

Thanks for this latest post. You've demonstrated again that (A) you don't care if your understanding of climate science is based on reality; (B) if your posts make sense; and (C) your only interest here is to troll.

Again, there is no such thing as "causative correlation". Not only is this a term you've made up, it is based on a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Moreover, there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures, and the cause of both the changing atmospheric CO2 level and changing global average temperature is well known. Please review this thread if you seek more information on this.

Where correlation exists CO2 level increases lag temperature increases.

Sorry.

[nursebenjamin]

Where correlation exists CO2 level increases lag temperature increases.

Sorry.

This is a repeated unsubstantiated claim, and a half strawman/half misunderstanding that has been addressed numerous times within this thread, including here and here.

Thank you for clarifying that you have no interest in science, reality, or a productive conversation.