Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

We have no idea whether the Earth (as a whole) is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature.

 

No they don't.

 

You should take your astute analysis to NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, the UN, the EU, and every other recognized group of national or international scientists on the planet because there are literally zero who maintain a dissenting opinion about human induced climate change.

Let me know how far you get.

 

If "climate change" is oh sooooo easy to define, then you should be able to effortlessly provide me with a workable definition of it. I've asked this question MANY hundreds of times across numerous online forums and I have only ONCE ever received a workable definition. That definition is posted under "Climate" in this Global Warming Mythology Reference Manual:
http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/2/global-warming-mythology-reference-manual

Technically, it's not impossible to determine. There IS a way. However, we do not have the weather station infrastructure for it. Those stations are not uniformly spaced nor are they simultaneously read by the same observer. Statistical Mathematics requires that raw data be used, data be selected by randN, normalized by paired randR, that a variance be declared and justified, and that a margin of error be calculated from said variance. These Climate Scientists are not doing any of that. These Climate Scientists think that one measurement at one very northern point of Antarctica means that "Antarctica reached a record high temperature!!" Ummmm, no. One location on Antarctica did, during the small time span that we have been able to accurately record temperatures. Whoopity doo.

Never said any such thing. I've only ever expected AGW proponents to either falsify the related currently standing laws of science which get in their way (usually the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law) OR to come up with a Greenhouse Effect model that does not falsify those laws. So far, neither have been successfully done.

 

Oh, that's right. Your the guy who thinks the Laws of Thermodynamics somehow negates the notion of AGW.

Yea, still zero interest in engaging you. Take your complaints up with NASA or NOAA or EPA or even Wikipedia and let me know how far you get.

 

Government agencies are not science. Neither are the fabled "climate scientists".

...except for the ones who do, of course...

Also, why appeal to people's opinions?? We have science, ya know.

 

Note: STILL no definition of "climate change" has been provided...

...because they do.

*You cannot create energy out of nothing.
*You cannot slow/trap heat.
*You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
*You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
*You cannot simultaneously decrease radiance and increase temperature.

...because I do not conform to your religion, and because you wish to discuss religion rather than science.

Government agencies are not science. Wikipedia is not science.

Science is, simply, a set of falsifiable theories.

 

No, it is definitely because you have a wholly inept, but utterly unflappable confidence in your, understanding of the underlying science.

You have also said that you believe it is impossible to ever convince you of AGW and there is zero reason to ever engage in a debate with someone who believes it is impossible to ever alter their current opinion.

 

LOL Literally nowhere in your link does it state human based CO2 is the primary source of climate change. Zero zip nada

Go ahead Legal, quote the sentence where it does.

Your belief is shot my friend. All they did was claim 25 % of new CO2 is human based which once again does not support your flat earther theory that humans are the primary source of climate change.

5% Legal. That's the entire amount of human produced CO2 and that's why your article never makes that BS claim you are

 

But see you can't admit that you are smart enough to realize we do not know what effects the environment on a global scale. You must adhere to climate change doctrine. You must confess your sins as a Heretic against the faith.

These folks are no different than Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola back in the day telling Galileo that all science was against him and that his evidence that earth was not the center of the universe is hearsay and must be punished.

 

You are back to making circular arguments. You demand that I find a quote in the source which you've already said is not in that source.

It is a weak **** strategy.

You wanted proof that humans are the cause of the increase in CO2 concentration, with percentages, over the last 150 years. You got it.

But instead of adjusting course and coming up with a new strategy, you resort to the same pathetically tired strategy of using your own conclusion as your evidence.

Get better.

 

You are now using the opinions of a guy who doubted Galielo over 400 years ago as your justification for arguing with scientists today.

 

No Legal. I'm holding you accountable for supporting your worthless theory of man being the primary cause of cliamte change.

LOL Because you keep fabricating a claim that it does prove man is the primary source of climate change.

And every time I ask for the direct quote from your own source that proves your belief that human created CO2 is the primary cause of climate change, you run. And you've done it again right on target.

Quote me Legal Quote me ANYWHERE where I demanded proof that humans are the cause of the increase in CO2 concentration because I NEVER did.

Do NOT fabricate a position I never took. What I demanded was proof of your claim that human created CO2 is the primary cause of climate change. That is all we are talking about. Your claim no one else's. Your article does not prove that claim so instead you fabricate an argument I never made because you cannot prove your own argument with your own article.

A cheap and petty tactic destined to fail but since you can't back up your own flat earther argument with your own article I can't say I'm surprised by this.

 

Because you are using the same tactics they did. You claim the science is settled, that all other sciewntists agree with you and that everyone must accept your belief system. That is why I brought it up.

Stay on point Legal. Your argument from the very beginning on this thread has been human created CO2 is the primary cause of climate change. That has been exposed for the fraud that it is with your own links and you can't admit it.

 

I love the indignation you are being triggered into feeling when being presented what you feel is inaccurate summation of your argument.

Especially in light of you repeatedly doing that over and over, including in this post to me. And especially when your little moment of sheer outrage happened despite the fact that you objectively did "demand proof that humans are the cause of the increase in CO2 concentration" when you said,

"What is the percentage of man made CO2 vs natural CO2 on this planet right now. I'll be generous and let you go back 10-15 if you have to" in post #631

But I hope you felt better by sharing your feelings and getting that outburst into the open.

 

You quoted a cardinal from 400 years ago and used him as your justification for your belief today.

#Logic

 

You also said, "I'm asking you to post actual percentages of CO2 both man made and natural to prove your flat earth theory and once again you can't do it." And in response to the article about Natural vs Man Induced CO2 emissions you said, "Thank you very much for that article. It just destroyed your entire theory!

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions.

Game over Legal. You can't pretend man made CO2 is the primary source of climate change when your own article admits its MUCH SMALLER than natural emissions!"

That was post #614.

But I hope you felt really good about being pigeonholed into a request that you objectively made and argued about multiple times.

Lol.

 

When you fabricate an argument I never made you bet. Your dishoenst tactics wont work though. Your inability to quote me saying anything of what you claimed is my evidence you know you made it up.

Primary cause Legal. Primary cause. Your argument not mine. Stop being so massively dishonest about your own argument when I'm quoting your own words.

When you openly fabricate statements I didn't make because you know you've lost the debate you can count on me going after you when you fabricate words I never said.

And yes I asked you directly for the CO2 levels human vs natural to expose your lie that humans are the primary cause of climate change because as always you cannot prove man made CO2 especially when its been exposed at being under 6% of total CO2 on this planet could ever be the primary cause of climate change.

 

And what do you think that proved Legal? You still haven't quoted me saying I demanded proof that humans are the cause of the increase in CO2 concentration because I NEVER did.

The increase of production was NEVER the question.

The question was what was the percentage of CO2 produced by humans vs natural CO2 since its your entire worthless argument that humans are the primary source of climate change through CO2 production.

And we know the number from your own sources. Its 5.25% and every time I've asked you to quote your sources anywhere where they can prove less than 6% CO2 production is the primary source of climate change you run. You did it in the last 3 responses and you are doing it once again for all to see.

And once again for the 43rd time you've been given an open mic to prove your flat earth theory that man is the primary cause of climate change and you can't quote a single source that backs you in your assertion with proof.

You lost pages ago so now you are down to openly fabricating arguments never made because you cannot prove yours.



Since you've proven once again you can't be honest enough to go point for point in your replies because it exposes your argument I'm going to ask you again: Quote ANY of your sources that prove the less than 6% of man made CO2 production is primarily responsible for climate change.

No more fabricating strawmen, this is your argument. Either quote your sources that prove your belief or admit you never should have made that laughable claim.

My bet is you will once again never answer it with proof.

 

The bolded is your argument.

This is what caused you to get triggered and say, "
Quote me Legal Quote me ANYWHERE where I demanded proof that humans are the cause of the increase in CO2 concentration because I NEVER did."

So you did demand proof that humans are the cause of the increase in CO2...again.

 

I did...pages ago (post 643) and then I repeated the data again (post 645) when you decided to ignore it and made multiple circular arguments. I could post the data again if you'd like?

Perhaps you'd like to demand proof that you wanted to see humans as responsible for the CO2 increase before demanding proof that humans are responsible for the CO2 increase?

Woops, looks like you did it again.

Or did you want me to back up and explain the greenhouse effect? Perhaps you wanted a refresher on how increasing greenhouse gases means that you get a stronger greenhouse effect?

 

You admitted it yourself, it is just a theory.

Why do you insist on pushing something with no actual proof?

Answer this: Can humans make it rain?

 

Yes, they probably can.

Answer this: Could humans go to a planet, like Mars, and alter the climate there? Go ahead and assume that they are willing to take hundreds of years, develop new technology to better produce climate altering effects, and were willing to spend trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours to that goal.

Also, I am still waiting on you to give me an example, even a hypothetical one, of something you believe would be "actual proof."

 

I'm ready to talk about the science whenever you are.

I've never said such a thing. In fact, I can provide you with two ways to convince me of AGW.

[1] Falsify the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law.
[2] Explain the supposed Greenhouse Effect in a way which does not violate logic nor any currently standing theory of science.

 

don't need to, as they aren't violated.

you've been shown this dozens of times, and given numerous experiments showing you are wrong.