Down goes Frasier...

Superfreak said:
http://www.economist.com/news/scien...ing-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

The economist, continuing to desperately cling to its tales of woe and misery for the economy, may finally be beginning to loosen its grip on the fairy tale. Slowly they are realizing what many have known for some time. The computer models are wrong.
Click to expand...

The first line:

The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away
Click to expand...
 
Howey said:
The first line:
Click to expand...

lmao... the article is a bit more than one line. The economist throughout the article is desperately clinging to the myths the fear mongers created... but it puts in place evidence that the fear mongers grasp on them is slipping. try reading the entire article.
 
So your source is not credible, but it is? You are cherry picking.

The temperatures are within the low range of the prediction models. Even if they fall outside of the prediction models that does not suddenly disprove global warming or anthropogenic causes, but just that we still don't understand them that well.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
So your source is not credible, but it is? You are cherry picking.

The temperatures are within the low range of the prediction models. Even if they fall outside of the prediction models that does not suddenly disprove global warming or anthropogenic causes, but just that we still don't understand them that well.
Click to expand...

LMAO... no, I am not cherry picking. Which is why I told Howey to read the whole thing and not just the first line (which IS cherry picking).

The point string, is that we do not understand it. I never suggested that it would disprove global warming. We all know the earth warmed over the 90's (especially) and that the 2000's maintained those higher levels (but did not increase). It is standard though for fear mongers to pretend that it is the warming that is being questioned. I am questioning how much man is influencing the warming. You know, the thing the fear mongers stomped their feet about and shouted CONSENSUS! on?

The fear mongers love looking at the last 120-30 years or so. But it is when the look is further back that we realize the earth has had shifts in temperature of this magnitude before. Our ability to detect these changes is what has changed.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... no, I am not cherry picking. Which is why I told Howey to read the whole thing and not just the first line (which IS cherry picking).

The point string, is that we do not understand it. I never suggested that it would disprove global warming. We all know the earth warmed over the 90's (especially) and that the 2000's maintained those higher levels (but did not increase). It is standard though for fear mongers to pretend that it is the warming that is being questioned. I am questioning how much man is influencing the warming. You know, the thing the fear mongers stomped their feet about and shouted CONSENSUS! on?

The fear mongers love looking at the last 120-30 years or so. But it is when the look is further back that we realize the earth has had shifts in temperature of this magnitude before. Our ability to detect these changes is what has changed.
Click to expand...

Of course, you are cherry picking. You claimed that the overall article is wrong but want us to take away something from it favorable to your own view.

Again, even if the temperatures fall outside of the low range of the prediction models it does not disprove the theory of anthropogeninc causes of global warming.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Of course, you are cherry picking. You claimed that the overall article is wrong but want us to take away something from it favorable to your own view.
Click to expand...

The above is not what I stated.

Again, even if the temperatures fall outside of the low range of the prediction models it does not disprove the theory of anthropogeninc causes of global warming.
Click to expand...

So you are going to continue to beat upon your straw man?

Let me know if you would like to discuss what has actually been stated.
 
Then what is your point? That some vague and undefined group that you label as "fearmongers" or "they" are wrong in some vague and undefined way? Whatever.

The article and the science still suggest that greenhouse gases produced by mankind have an impact on climate and are a major factor in warming. There may be other variables we have not considered or new ones.
 
Even if all the climatologist are wrong, and they're not, what's so bad about protecting the environment anyhow?
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Then what is your point? That some vague and undefined group that you label as "fearmongers" or "they" are wrong in some vague and undefined way? Whatever.

The article and the science still suggest that greenhouse gases produced by mankind have an impact on climate and are a major factor in warming. There may be other variables we have not considered or new ones.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is you didn't read the article and you are instead here to chant nonsense?

Saying anything 'has an impact on climate' is simply more of the same bullshit I am talking about. We all know that things impact each other. Almost anything we do impacts the climate.

The article does not state that they are a major factor in warming... the article is beginning to question the models that showed they were. The article is saying that the models are breaking down. That there appear to be other factors that we are not aware of or sure of. That was the point of the article. That a staunch man made global warming backer is now beginning to question the models. The models we have seen breaking down for ten years.
 
Howey said:
Even if all the climatologist are wrong, and they're not, what's so bad about protecting the environment anyhow?
Click to expand...

I have NO problem protecting the environment. I do have a problem with wasting money on regulations and studies that are rigged to produce an outcome. I have a bigger problem when so called 'scientists' proclaim consensus in the manner that the fear mongers have done. That is a major red flag.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
So your source is not credible, but it is? You are cherry picking.

The temperatures are within the low range of the prediction models. Even if they fall outside of the prediction models that does not suddenly disprove global warming or anthropogenic causes, but just that we still don't understand them that well.
Click to expand...

Settled science! concensus!!

Fuck all the warmers! their models fail. And yes, they are all but outside of the low range of their lowest estimate proving they have overstated CO2 sensitivity... Just like I've been saying for years. I even predicted the CO2 forcing was overstated and said I thought it was actually only 1/3 of the forcing they had prescribed to CO2.
 
Superfreak said:
So what you are saying is you didn't read the article and you are instead here to chant nonsense?

Saying anything 'has an impact on climate' is simply more of the same bullshit I am talking about. We all know that things impact each other. Almost anything we do impacts the climate.

The article does not state that they are a major factor in warming... the article is beginning to question the models that showed they were. The article is saying that the models are breaking down. That there appear to be other factors that we are not aware of or sure of. That was the point of the article. That a staunch man made global warming backer is now beginning to question the models. The models we have seen breaking down for ten years.
Click to expand...

I read it, but not through your distorted lens. It's not just that it has an impact but that it is a major factor.

The article did not mention any other factor or theory as to the cause of warming. It only indicated that sensitivity to Co2 may be lower than the IPCC models believed and therefore implied that Co2 is still the primary cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top