Global Warming Skeptics › Our Blue Marble › Consensus Science › Comment discussions from outside the forum v
JohnWho's comment

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 58 Votes - 3.14 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
JohnWho's comment
10-24-2011, 06:28 PM
Post: #1
Sunsettommy Offline
MANAGER
*******
 		Posts: 4,090
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 6
JohnWho's comment
From HERE

Quote:JohnWho says:
October 3, 2011 at 2:20 pm

Martin_Lack says:

October 3, 2011 at 12:57 am

Some of you demand evidence but do not accept it when it is presented to you: disappearing sea ice, melting permafrost, retreating glaciers, desertification, crop failures, food shortages, water scarcity. These are all consequences of ongoing AGW…

No, they are not.

They may be consequences of a changing climate or poor land management, but they are not necessarily consequences of ongoing AGW, especially AGW caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions which is the main point of discussion.

Have we been warming since the end of the LIA” – mostly yes, lately not so much, but it is likely that we will begin warming again (unless the folks suggesting we are about to begin a cooling phase are right).

Has the atmospheric CO2 level been rising also since shortly after the end of the LIA? – again, yes.

However, while the rate of the atmospheric CO2 rise has been fairly consistent, the cooling and warming has not, although it has been somewhat cyclic as it moves in the warming direction.

Ask yourself – how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere each year? How much is put there by anthropogenic CO2 emissions? What percentage then is the anthropogenic contribution? Why then, of the about 2 ppm of CO2 being added to the atmosphere each year, isn’t the anthropogenic contribution that same percentage? Wouldn’t that be just as logical as saying the entire 2 ppm is anthropogenic?

Also, I’ve reminded folks a few times that

-Arctic Ice disappearing
-Glaciers retreating
-Coral reef bleaching
-Mt Kilimanjaro losing snow
-Polar bears doing anything anywhere
-Some creature or plant facing extinction
-A change in cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons
-Droughts
-Floods
-Dry rivers
-Computer models or simulations
-A “consensus”
-Al Gore’s movie
-Etc. causing etc. by etc. reported by etc., etc.

are not proof of CAGW by CO2.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-24-2011, 08:30 PM
Post: #2
Scpg02. Offline
Constitutionalist
****
 		Posts: 422
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 2
RE: JohnWho's comment
[Image: tens.gif]
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-25-2011, 05:26 AM
Post: #3
JohnWho Offline
Who? Me worry?
*****
 		Posts: 877
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 4
RE: JohnWho's comment
Yeah, that

"Etc. causing etc. by etc. reported by etc., etc."

line gets 'em every time.

Smile
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)