Look like Global warming was a HOAX after all

[bcp]

Couple of cartoons:

Is Climate Change A Hoax? » Landscape Photography Blogger

Dave Granlund – Editorial Cartoons and Illustrations » Climate Change Evidence



Bruce

 

[Egon]

Nothing I hate worser than Democratic Lobsters

:laughing:

Dem's Atlantic Lobster!:thumbsup:

Nope, I aren't a Lobsterman. Farm Boy from Alberta I are.

 

[sseelhoff]

"All I said was there are two basic facts that deniers can work with to disprove global warming theories, or support their own claims.

You realize that under the scientific method, the point is to prove a theory is true. Two of the touchstones is that it must be verifiable through credible evidence and reproduceable. The burden is not on the skeptic to disprove the theory. The burden is on the proponent.

The question is not does climate change. That has been proven. The quesiton is whether it is caused by human activity.

 

[/pine]

Dem's Atlantic Lobster!:thumbsup:

Nope, I aren't a Lobsterman. Farm Boy from Alberta I are.

How do you know they (lobsters (of any persuasion)) are moving north?

 

[aczlan]

The question is not does climate change. That has been proven. The quesiton is whether it is caused by human activity.

And when the models they claim show that we will have a disaster down the road (temps rising when there is more then x PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere for example) are proved wrong year after year, why should they be trusted?

Aaron Z

 

[lockhaven]

70 degrees in Virginia!!!!! well that settles it call Al he can use that in a speech. Please do not mention the mid west that would ruin his talk

 

[Ranger Rick]

Here some short videos from the scientific community about various aspects of climate change.

How to talk to an ostrich | Earth: The Operators' Manual

 

[Midniteoyl]

Hmmmm. So if a caveman noted that the Ice Age glaciers hadn't advanced much in the past 10-20 years half-way through the maximum glacial extent....he could write some dandy opinion pieces.

Global temperatures have plateaued in the past 150 years and then continued to rise. Here again, deniers have a golden science opportunity to prove that that pattern is not going to repeat. Where is their science?

Not directed at you, Dave, but, I love the 'temps have been stable for (put # of centuries in here) stuff... Think 'little ice age'.. Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the nineteenth century or early in the twentieth century.

Temps during the Dark Ages were also down.. It was a warming that helped the Renaissance come about too. (Though there were several factors)

 

[sseelhoff]

Here some short videos from the scientific community about various aspects of climate change.

How to talk to an ostrich | Earth: The Operators' Manual

I think you mean "scientific community."

 

[dave1949]

You realize that under the scientific method, the point is to prove a theory is true. Two of the touchstones is that it must be verifiable through credible evidence and reproduceable. The burden is not on the skeptic to disprove the theory. The burden is on the proponent.

The question is not does climate change. That has been proven. The quesiton is whether it is caused by human activity.

When you have two settled science concepts such as the effect of greenhouse gases, or ocean acidification, those who want to overturn that have their own burdens. That's just the way it is.

You are implying there is no credible evidence for the effect of greenhouse gases, or what happens when rising levels of CO2 are present. The theories have been proven. They are not new. Real scientists who overturn a "proven" theory also use credible evidence and results that are reproducible. It has happened in the past. Those scientists didn't just stand around saying it's not true, they rolled up their sleeves and produced proof. What is stopping the deniers from producing their own evidence?

Humans are the ones who are taking lots of carbon (coal, oil, gas) that was locked into the earth's crust and inserting it into the earth's active carbon cycle. There is no question about who is doing that. Whatever results, it is human caused.

And no, volcanoes do not produce more than humans. Forest fires are quickly releasing carbon that is already accounted for in the earth's active carbon cycle. One way or another, sooner or later, that plant carbon was going to be released and recaptured.