RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
"Your circular arguments will not change the fact
that, "global warming science" is still mostly junk science."
and that your OPINION (and thats all it is thus far), no if you want it to be anyhting more than just a nonsensical opinion you NEED to back you opinion up... not ignore science because you don't like it... thats whats children do when they hear things they don't like... you might as well stick your finger in you hers start yelling and say "i can't hear you"... that the same level of arguement that ""global warming science" is still mostly junk science."" is.
That's what hypothesis is for??
But, they gave up on the hypothesis for "global cooling", which was the prior thesis for the climate "scientists". Why did they give up on that research? Why didn't they follow up on that big lie?"
yeah, in the 70's, when they had a few colder years (not nearly enough to distrub a long term trend), and contrary to your claim they did follow it up it was found faulty because the earth was warming, hence global warming..
science is a self-correcting institution, its unlike religion in that it adapt to the information... science is in reality never wrong for that reason (rather its just not understood at the given time), but rather the proposed theory or hyposesis can be... however the global warming hypothesis has thus or never been proven wrong, and has infact been strengthened by the fact that it hasn't and almost certianly cannot be disproven, since for that to occur it would actually have to stop happening and infact reverse, which defeats the purpose to trying to disprove it.
"Chances are, with more and more of their predictions not coming true, and with the world sliding into cooler weather year in and year out, that those same "researchers" will change to some other hypothesis that they will think they can "prove" then, or that the opposition will have a hard time disproving."
actually they're predictions are coming true... and for that matter FASTER than was predicted, hence why new climate model are almost always more dramatic then the ones the decade before,
and the years HAVEN'T been getting colder, they just haven't STEADILY been as higher as they were in the hottest year on record (1998), which is again, at best, you taking a fact out of context and, at worst, you're deliberately lying... and BTW i've already cover this in this thread (your obviously not reading my postys in their entirity)
"And, hey, it's not me that's having a problem with the scientific method; it's the "scientists" that are working on the "science" who have a problem with the scientific method. "
no you have a problem with the scientific method... they made a hypothesis, their hypothesis was proven, and reapeatidly verified (for the better part of 50 years), and you call it junk science... hence you have a problem with the scientific method... and BTW incase you haven't heard the investigation into climategate found no wrong doing by the climate scientists... just a gross misunderstanding for the scientific method and scientific slang, which a hacker with an obvious anti-global warming agenda (much like yourself in that respect), hacked into and and made public to discredit global warming (obviosuly without understanding it himself, if he even read it), and in the end he not only looks like a criminal, but a complete idiot too for basically yelling fire when there wasn't one.
"Some of the predictions that they made years back and which were supposed to occur by the year 2000, never occurred, and, the glaciers melting and the seas rising were supposed to have happened to a life-altering level by now. Those didn't happen!"
maybe, MAYBE, in the earliest, crudest global warming models, i'll just have to assume your correct (even if your not) since i've heard of no such admission, but i doubt they said anything akin to life altering given the ocen level increase and rate of glacier melt was MUCH slower back when global warming first became a major concern in the late 50's, early 60's.
and yes they WILL have live altering impacts eventually... especially when costal cities and even small coastal or island countries start disappearing, and they will... the melting glacier water has to go somewhere... that somewhere is the ocean... and the it can increase 60 meters, over 185 feet, (conservatively), or up to 80 meters, almost 250 feet, if it were to be allowed to melt entirely...
so even if they did make that statement, they were right... but their timeframe would have been wrong... but the climate and sea level models out in the last 30 years are progressively getting more dramatic, reflecting the ever accelerating global warming.
"Look, you and all the junk science researchers may be able to rebut all the points that anybody puts up against the global warming "science", but the rebuttals are not always factual."
good luck refuting anything i've said... i dare you to try... you'll only make yourself look worse skating uphill into a brickwall...lol
and no crap that rebuttals aren't always factual... if they were i wouldn't be correcting people so often; namely you in this thread.
and likewise if mine weren't factual you would be able to refute anything i say whereas you never done any such thing... and i assume you would if you could.
"Obama and the democrats always try to rebut republican points about the huge job losses that have occurred under Obama, "
well there your agenda right there... thank for showing your true stripes.
"Neither the global warmists nor the opposition can say for certain that global warming will cause devastating weather in the future, or not.
Thus, frightening scenarios can be proposed in order to scare people into undertaking actions to combat something that will probably never occur. "
again this is you showing how far behind the science curve you are...
we've known for a FACT for at least 2 decades that warmer ocean temperatures directly cause more frequent and stronger hurricanes... are hurricanes not devastating?
we've known for a FACT (for many decades) that colder cold fronts colliding with warmer warm fronts directly cause more frequent and stronger tornadoes, are tornadoes not devastating?
we know for a FACT that warmer more arid condition s casue more wildfire, are wildfire not devastating?
are floods not devasting... they've been happening more frequently... how about droughts, they've bee more frequent and and drier... yeah i'd say the effects are ALREADY devasting... IF your watching.
"You'll also note that I also accept that global cooling also occurs. In fact, I'll admit that catastrophic global climate changes have happened in the past and will in the future, whether we help or not."
yeah you did... however you left out that they naturally occur over THOUSANDS of years... not decades.
and yes, they will occur with or without us (you'll never see me say otherwise, ever)... but nothing like this... this is the natural cycle on steroids (stronger) and meth (faster) at the same time.
"What I don't accept is the proposition that the globe is warming as a consequence of humankind's consumption of fossil fuels. "
well sorry... but it is.. and thats a fact... again good luck disproving it...
and moreover that not even close to the only way wer are causing it, as my previous posts point out (some of which aren't even factors taken into consideration in climate models; because they aren't climate, but are intrictly tied to global warming, such as human caused radiant heat, and deforestation).
"The fact is that the globe has been in a long-term warming cycle that started a couple hundred years ago, and an overall much longer period of warming that started some 10-20 thousand years ago."
and again your out of context on both accounts as those peoroids you reference to are ICE AGES... of course its warmed since the major and minor ice age ended... if not you wouldn't be alive... and where you are now would probably be under a mile of ice.
i hope you realize how flawed an arguement that was.
"but nobody should take a period of 2 or 3 or 4 decades, and then conclude that it's because mankind has been using more oil than in the past."
they don't.. at this point your not even taking things out of context your either just plain ignorant, or your lying... the most basic peroid of time is 150-160 years (to the pre-indurstial era), and the longest ones (of a climate we've existed in) goes back 1-2 MILLION years, though that timeframe is mostly used to CO2 tracking... and BTW CO2 hasn't been this high since the early time of homo erectus (1-2 MILLION years ago) and no less than 5 times longer ago than homosapien was even in existence.
"and then conclude that it's because mankind has been using more oil than in the past."
yes thats part of it... but by no means the whole picture.
"But, the science is still mostly junk science, with a few facts interspersed within it here and there so as not to look completely fraudulent and irrelevant."
well it might help if you understood what you were talking about rather than just repeating the talking points from anti-global warming pundit without thought, which is evident as nearly everything you've said is out of context, and in some cases a complete lie (whether knowningly or unknowingly).
"And, it is true, according to temperatures records from all over the world, that the globe, as a whole, has actually cooled in the last 10 to 12 years."
and AGAIN (for i believe the third time in this thread), thats out of context as that was ONLY 1 year (and was a dramatic spike above the trend), and an el nino year at that.
"Global warming "scientists", and their supporters, will of course try to explain away the data, as you have done"
only because your wrong, specifically in this case wrong because its out of context... if ti wasn't and you were correct AND in context i would have to agree with you, and would be happy to do so.
"Furthermore, you might be one of the only few who is still supporting, in any fashion, the "hockey stick" "research". That was one of the biggest frauds in the "science", even if most of rest of the "science" is very iffy."
first off, it hasn't been proven a fraud... it was proven FLAWED... big difference.
secondly, it was a crude representation of the NORTHERN hemisphere (not of the whole earth as global warming model are), and the premise of it was indeed correct, that its warmer than it was in the past 1000 years (the new graph cover 2000 years), and any information earlier than 1850 is spotty because it wasn't measured first hand... much less with precise instruments...
I btw don't use that graph to support anty of my claim anyways... i use mostly raw data, and when i use graph i use multiple source (as should always be done)... and most importantly i try to keep everything in context.
and no hitler wasn't a great person, infact he was quite a mess up person... still a creative genus though, and its ironic you brought that up as when i was in school years back, i actually did defend some the things hitler did (nor did i have to changes facts or history to do it then either)... even in my teen years i was able to differentiate the good things from the agenda... because they aren't one and the same...
throwing the baby out with the bath water is NEVER a scientific, nor logical approach.