[quote=kscott13;483829]My point is that Global Warming is a natural phenomenon. Others share in this opinion. This link is interesting.


http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/resear...dex.htm#topics

Sorry, first post I didn't get the first link right.

I don't know. I think they actually believe it. Funny that none of the "warmer believers" addressed my question.....

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/new...rner_0404.html

Hey Ted, you aren't alone. Just read the other stupid anthropogenic global warming comments in this thread by the Chicken Little crowd. What's on the menu at his restaurant?

__________________
"We should Invade Their Countries, Kill Their Leaders, and Convert Them to Christianity." Ann Coulter
There is a fine line between a subtle nuance and an extreme dichotomy! - PatriotNews

Mmmm.... Who would I eat first.

Al Gore = Henny Penny, do you think that means he tastes like chicken.

I never claimed there was cooling in the 1990s, just that in the 1990 IPCC report their graphs of climate history showed Cooling during the Industrial Ages.

Did you even look at the graph?

When you say list videos, what do you mean? A playlist? In which case, yes, that documentary uploaded onto youtube has Mann claiming that 1998 was the warmest year in the past millenium.

Then, what is it with AGW proponents hopping from graph to graph? 12 wrongs don't make a right, McIntyre couldn't even get the information he wanted from Mann to analyze the first hockystick, who is going to be able to track down the information for 12 of them? Its the great global warming sweepstakes, each alarmist will make the past as cold as possible and the present times as hot as possible.

So what changed since 1990? You never answered me.

Well sorry, its been common climate history fact until this whole AGW scare was made into a big political issue. Next time I'll remember you get your understanding of climate science from the folks at "Real"Climate.

How did you shift from man-made aerosols to volcanoes? You are probably the strangest AGW believer I have ever discussed this with.

I ssee a graph with blue, red and black lines with no indication of what the lines are supposed to represent. Perhaps you'd like to provide a link to a legend and data labels for the chart?

Here's a screen capture of your link:

I'm not going to look at all the videos to find the one you're referring to.

I never answered you because you still haven't shown me that the 1990 IPCC report concluded that during the Industrial Age the globe cooled.
Did you even bother reading the research links in my links? If you didn't, I won't waste my time supplying you with links.

How do you conclude that I get my information from "Real Climate" ? I never mentioned them and have provided no links to their site?



Here's your original post:If you or anyone see the word "man-made", could you bold it or underline it for me.


Oh, and I checked out the The Manhattan Declaration and The NYC Global Warming Conference spnsored by the Heartland Institute. That was a joke, right?

In case it wasn't. Your original statement was "plenty of scientific conferences". You supplied me with one conference attended by scientists who have done no research and have no peer-reviewed publications. They give their opinions. Opinions, without research or evidence, have no place in a scientific debate. Opinions without research or evidence are a political debate. If you do not understand the difference, you'll never understand that the scientific debate is over.

I'm sorry, but if the choice on who to believe is between a "scientists" with no research and scientists who back their conclusions with research, I'll believe the scientists every time.
Let me ask you this: If you go to a doctor who does medical tests and reaches a conclusion that you are sick and go to a doctor who just looks at you does no tests and decides you are healthy, which one are you going to believe?

__________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Chicken Little never did any scientific research.

__________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

For the third time, CO2 in atmosphere has risen by 30% since 1938.

Where is the heat?

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

All the time in the world to take screen shots of youtube, but not enough to scroll down and look at the included legend?

First, would you agree that 1998 wasn't the hottest year in the last 1,000?

I showed you, you just ignored it.

But why would volcanoes be especially active during the Industrial Ages? The classic explanation from your camp for the Industrial Cooling is our aerosols.

You don't like their conclusion, so of course its a joke.

See you make absurd claims all the time, but don't provide evidence.

Anyhow, they are scientists, most far more qualified than some of the jokes on the IPCC author's list, and they all disagree with AGW. I've shown you primary literature written by and expressing skeptic views of the situation. So claiming that all they are doing is expressing opinions is baloney.

And again, the scientific debate is far from over, if from One IPCC report to the next an entire section has been so well refuted the author of that section and all of his contributions were replaced, its far from settled science.

Its a 20 year old theory, nothing in the scientific world that young qualifies as settled, or done.

You are leaving out the fact that the methods to test for this illness haven't changed in 18 years, and that this sickness would have presented 18 years ago, when all of the tests pointed against it.

You are also leaving out that these doctors have political motivation to diagnose you with this sickness and will have a lot of trouble getting funding if you aren't sick.

Then, the doctors who think you aren't sick are looking at all of your medical history, and all of the recent tests. They think you have a much more common problem, which won't be that big of a deal, and doesn't need medicine. Needless to say, we know which doctors aren't going to make the pharmaceutical companies happy.

Warming is the result of many factors. So even though there is an increase in CO2, one of the other factors could have a cooling effect.
As an example, let's assume, for educational purposes only, that the only factors to heat the globe are the sun and CO2. If the sun decreases its warming effects by a larger amount then the CO2 is warming the globe, the net effect will be a cooler earth.
All the evidence suggests that the earth is getting warmer, but if all the factors are added up, there is not enough to explain the increase in the warming rate without adding in human contribution of CO2.

__________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?