Like Kryptonite To Stupid
First off, the Dicaprio-Gore bit was hilarious (see cons, you go for the funny first, not the preaching or else it wouldn’t work). And kudos to Al Gore for taking awareness of the global climate crisis to a new level, no matter what the deniers mumble about.
Politics 2008 Election Republicans Conservatives Iraq Media Democrats George W. Bush Barack Obama John McCain Humor Hillary Clinton 2006 Election Uncategorized Links NFL Oliver's World Right Wing Media Redskins Race Newsweek Maryland Terrorism Sports Movies Religious Right Fox News Mitt Romney Economy Women Racism Liberal Media Michael Steele Liberals Rudy Giuliani Fred Thompson Superman News Black Conservatives Television Comics Democratic Congress John Edwards Immigration History Ben Cardin Economics Technology U.S. Attorney Scandal Global Warming Crime 9/11 Al Qaeda Al Gore Bill Clinton Dick Cheney Iran TV Religion Site Stuff Joe Lieberman Education Democratic House Republican Culture Of Corruption Democratic Senate Stem Cell Research The Politico Useful "Liberals" Intelligent Design Supreme Court Science Weird Media For McCain Kirsten Powers Health Care Fox News Channel Guns Free Speech Books tba2007 Video Abortion Atheism Progressives The Washington Post Foreign Policy Katrina World Bob Ehrlich Mike Allen Business America David Broder Hillary Clinton's Experience Washington Post Virginia Washington D.C. Jessica Alba Energy Stupid Things Entertainment 2005 Election Martin O'Malley Gay Marriage Instapundit Ron Paul Snoopgate Howard Dean USA Glenn Reynolds Military MSNBC Hugh Hewitt Nancy Pelosi Virginia Tech Massacre GOP Bigot Eruptions Fox News Democrats D.C. Evolution National Security Doctor Who OW Radio Blogs CK MBAPBSAllAmericaDem Anti-Gay CNN Space Jamaica The Truth Army Advertising BBC New York Times New Orleans Disney Mark Penn Chris Matthews Dumb Liberals First Amendment Freema Agyeman Torchwood Zen! Trade Tom DeLay Torture The War The Daily Show Karl Rove Jon Stewart 163 John McCain And Airbus 209 Hillary Hate Wal-Mart Health Glenn Beck Homeland Security Howard Kurtz Weblogs Football Afghanistan James Carville Legal Music Art CIA Michelle Obama Sean Hannity Republican Bigot Eruption Brent Bozell Obama Haters Bob Barr Bill Richardson Regulation Bill Kristol Senate AP Current Affairs Libertarians Taylor Marsh Olympics Alaska Subprime Conservativies Clenis Social Security Media Research Center Conservative Alan Colmes
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. — Sinclair Lewis.
It’s not that the cons are inherently not funny, it’s just that their hands are firmly deep inside our wallets.
Big Al at the Oscars - mingling with the very best minds in the progressive community. Well I guess this really means the “science” is settled. Hollywood says its so. Lets change the name of Greenland to Whiteland and we can settle that little nagging issue too. But, ohh, we want a fair and open debate. Though, if you debate our “science” (and how could you? there is consensus - the core of the scientific method), you are not going to be able to feed your kids.
Dugger, Admitted Global Cooling Denier (IF WE DON”"T PUT SOOT ON THE ICE CAPS, WE”RE IN FOR A NEW ICE AGE!!!!)
Though, if you debate our “science”…you are not going to be able to feed your kids.
Actually, big oil will happily help you feed your kids if you publicly question the scientific consensus.
WOW I thought that sinclair lewis quote was referring to al gore and the religion of “human” warming! It really fits so well….
Cause you see, the guys that are saying humans aren’t actually causing global warming aren’t flying around the world going to moochie parties in their G5 jet, now are they?
Seem like the “warmener’s” know who’s buttering their toast….
“Signore Galileo, don’t you understand that the consensus has spoken? The earth is the center of the universe.”
“But holy Father…”
“No ‘buts’. The science is settled. How could the consensus be wrong?”
“But, Holy Father…”
“Thats the second ‘but’, Galileo. You are beginning to sound like a earth-as-center-of-the-universe denier. An anti-consensus heretic. How do you plan to feed your children without employment?”
“I don’t know, Holy Father, but I’m beginning to see the wisdom of his consensus thing.”
Good call, because “99% of the world’s climatologists” and “The Pope” carry exactly equal scientific weight!
Dugger, as ever, your analogy is impressively ignorant. The churches earth-centric opinion was as rooted in the scientific method as much as I am Ludwig van Beethoven’s left middle toe. Galileio had evidence, reason, and proofs. The church had a book written centirues before by people who weren’t actually trying to write a science text. Your pretense that the anti-global warming crowd is in any way analogous to Galileio leaves a thinking person to wonder why you didnt go for gold, and take all the scientists funded by oil companies to come up with something, anything that legitimizes their need to believe that all the science is wrong, and compare all these well-paid shills to Jesus Christ. After all they speak the truth that the Pharisees (which are completely analogous to the scientific community because I say so pthhhhhbtbtbtbtbt) did not want to get out and had to silence them by public execution (here analogous to providencing evidence, fact, logic, proofs, etc., again, because I say so).
Seriously, get bent, Dugger.
Also, Pedro, stop pretending you know shit about fuck. Youre not witty, youre not clever, youre not smart, and there’s nobody on this earth who would be willing to tell you otherwise.
Also, for old time’s sake, Frank eats dick.
Rex Mundane, proud disbeliever in Global Cooling as much as he is a disbeliever in Global Cheddar Cheesing, a theory which had as much legitimate dispassionate scientific backing as cooling did.
It was kind of a Gore lovefest last night, wasn’t it? And your right oliver, the whole gag with leo was pretty funny. You couple last night with his SNL performance and Mr. Gore has a pretty solid body of comedic work. If only we’d seen that a bit more in 2000….
Pope, hell. It was the scientific consensus of the time (which was also the Church’s position). Big Media is the church of our time. The earth-centric view was, like the present ‘global warming is almost all man made’, the establishment position. Why else are the various state governments and the Weather Channel and Big Media now punishing or threatening to punish various scientists and officials who deviate from the establishment consensus position? Why?
Dugger, Take a vacation this year in scenic Whiteland(which, now, officially, via consensus, has never been green).
First off, the Dicaprio-Gore bit was hilarious (see cons, you go for the funny first, not the preaching or else it wouldn’t work).
Dude. That was not hilarious. I chuckled a little, but it was nowhere near guffaw inducing.
The part where George Clooney said he was backstage drinking with Al Gore was funnier as was the bit when Lucas said, “It’s better to give than to receive” with regard to Oscars to which Spielberg and Coppola replied in unison, “No it’s not.”
It was the scientific consensus of the time (which was also the Church’s position).
If your idea of science is “Book Am Say So!” then yes. Alternately, if you we’re sane… but there we may be supposing too much.
The earth-centric view was, like the present ‘global warming is almost all man made’, the establishment position.
The difference is pivotally important, which makes it all the more unsurprising that you go to such lengths to ignore it. Global Warming has science, evaluation, facts, proof, objective, dispassionate review and criticism, and more importantly, truth behind it. Earth-Centrism is based on, to repeat, “Book Am Say So!” and not much else.
The logical leap here is truly amazing though, where youre not judging the fault with Earth-Centrism on anything more than the fact that alot of people agreed with it, as though its being the “Establishment Consensus” (I still say you dont know what that word means, since you and I are forever using it in different contexts) makes something inherently wrong in ways that we’ll only see in the future. Thats really the only thing you have to base criticism of GW on anymore, that it might not be exactly right and wont we potentially feel really stupid for, for instance, developing more energy effecient fuels or something.
Why else are the various state governments and the Weather Channel and Big Media now punishing or threatening to punish various scientists and officials who deviate from the establishment consensus position? Why?
And here we get back to the whole “The scientific method is a conspiracy!!!” meme, and while it should be embarassing for just about anyone to even suggest as much, its so very telling that Dugger just whips it out for all the world to see.
Honestly, Dugg, you dont have science, reason, even popular opinion on your side. What the hell is it that makes you think, in spite of allllllllllll the evidence, that man-made global warming isnt true?
When “The Goracle” can tell me how humans caused the mid-west glaciers to recede 16,000 years ago I might consider joining his cult. But until then, he’s just another huckster selling the 21st century’s version of Scientology.
So until something untrue can be proven, you’ll continue seeing science as being false? Wow, thats… hell I think its both self-contradictory and yet circular logic. Until the untrue is true, the true will be untrue… holy hell, its a logistical mobius strip.
It was the scientific consensus of the time (which was also the Church’s position).
So was blood-letting. Today, not so much.
dugger personifies the conservative who believes anything that annoys liberals.
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/02/26/tomo/index1.html
dugger personifies the conservative who believes anything that annoys liberals.
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/02/26/tomo/index1.html
Frank’s Second Coming didn’t last long now I think of it.
Dugger, I could give you a breakdown of how wrong and stupid and wrong and stupid you are, but a) everyone’s done it and b) you’re not worth the effort.
So I will just say shut up, Dugger.
Put it here and stop annoying us normal people:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming
You know you have won the argument when Nimrod starts in with his “you know I could prove you wrong…but I have a hair appointment” argument….LOL
Rex since the science is so well-formed, please tell how MUCH humans have warmed the planet? Is it 98% of warming is human caused, or 2%?
Cause the answer is important….and all you (ahem)”scientists” out there can’t seem to get a straight answer to this critical question.
Cause the answer is important….and all you (ahem)”scientists” out there can’t seem to get a straight answer to this critical question.
…um, Pedro… basically all the unnatural climate change has been caused by humans. Pretending that otherwise has ever been the case while trying to laugh hurrhurr, scientists are so stoopud doesnt change that. Here’s where I answered that question for you before (and no surprise that you still continue to pretend that the question itself is unanswerable) and gave based on my admittedly severely unprofessional view of the available evidence that 66% of the warming can be attibuted to fossil fuel consumption specifically. I and others have provided facts, analysis, theorys, proposals and evidence to support the GW side of the argument, all you, in the opposition, have, is pretending that it all doesnt exist because you dont want it too, and scientists are stupid because this one time, at band camp, these couple of scientists got a lot of press when they came up with “global cooling,” a theory which, for reason of it being demonstrably false, never caught on. Your argument is not based on any supportive evidence, merely the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the mountains of legitimate evidence that proves you wrong. You’re pathetic, Pedro. Thats why the sane can’t be bothered to argue with you.
Doctor, do you take this dim a view of scientists in your (ahem)”professional” capacity?
Rex
“basically all the unnatural climate change has been caused by humans.”
Did you go to the genius encyclopaedia to come up with that? I guess I could say all natural global warming is not man made. Right? Genius?
Again, what percentage of the almost 1 degree increase since about 1900 is caused by man. Your unprofessional 66% opinion is no better than mine. What do your scientists say? Surely if its their ‘consensus’, you can dash off several of their ‘proofs’ right away.
And you know what? I know that you nor your ‘experts’ know can answer the question honestly. Its a political matter with you guys and a matter of faith. The people who doubt 100% man made global warming are the ‘right’ enemies for you.
There have been great periods of warming and cooling in the past. Why isn’t this modest short period of warming one of them, or at least a significant contributor. Why? Why was greenland green? Why could we grow citrus in south Ga. then and not now? Why do true believers want to shut people up?
nimmer,
You are increasingly without substance and childish. You have never actually proven that you can fog a mirror, much less participate in a debate with adults. If I’m wrong, show it. Prove all global warming is all man made. I doubt you will be able to discuss it for two posts without dissolving into a screeching emotional lather.
Dugger you ignorant slut, the point I’m making is that the entirety of the change is man-made. There are natural causes of climate shift, yes, but those haven’t been at work. Breifly put, if Air temperature goes up naturally, its because the heat comes from somewhere else, namely the sea (and to a drastically lesser extent, the land), which would show lower temperatures to balance it out in the aggregate (as happened during the other periods of large-scale heating and cooling you mention). Temperature tests have shown not only warmer air, but warmer oceans as well. (Note, I cannot find the proper link for this at the moment, will be able to later) You might have noticed melting polar ice caps? Yeah, like that. Water’s warmer, so’s the air.
Therefore, as any sane person can see (again, apologies for assuming so much of you) the cause of global warming is not natural, and therefore 100% Man-Made.
I know that you nor your ‘experts’ know can answer the question honestly.
So not only is science a lie, so is logic. How nice for you.
nimmer, You are increasingly without substance and childish… If I’m wrong, show it. Prove all global warming is all man made.
Since I’ve just shown you to be, who would have guessed it, Wrong of all things, let me ask you, what substance do you have Dugger? Your argument consists exclusively of “Well people have been wrong before” and “Anecdotes prove all of science wrong. If you want to believe that all the evidence on our side can be dismissed with obtuse anecdotes, then I am compelled to ask, where is the evidence on your side that has undergone the rigors of dispassionate scientific review?
“There are natural causes of climate shift, yes, but those haven’t been at work.”
How on God’s hot earth do you know the changes aren’t natural - like the sun warming? You are the only person any place I have heard say the current minor warm-up is 100% man made. What happened to your 66%?
And I am not trying to shut up man-made global warming advocates. I am pointing out holes and fallacies in the arguments and asking questions I have yet to see addressed. And my bull-sh*t meter has been ticking big time as I see and hear all the efforts to cow the opposition into silence via career threats etc.
And yes. I have seen a lot of hysteria over the last thirty years. We are running out of natural resources, over population, great far sweeping starvation, global cooling etc. I haven’t seem them borne out. We are living longer. You will pardon me, then, if I am trustful of the latest doomsday scenario - some of which (rfom Al Gore) has already been retracted. If its true, if the science is good, you all should welcome debate - shouldn’t you?
How on God’s hot earth do you know the changes aren’t natural - like the sun warming? You are the only person any place I have heard say the current minor warm-up is 100% man made. What happened to your 66%?
My 66% was my rough estimate of how much of it is caused specifically by the burning of fossil fuels. The remaining third are due to other pollutants, like chloroflourocarbons. I maintain that 100% of the warming is anthropogenic, but should probably clarify. I explained how any natural warming cannot be caused within the earth’s ecosystem itself (see above) but yes, in theory a warming sun would also increase the globe’s temperature. Breifly, since sunspots burn brighter than the rest of the sun, more of them means the sun is burning hotter, making the Earth warmer. And yes, I will concede as much as there are relatively more sunspots now than there were 100 years ago, and its not impossible to draw a corrolary to global temperature. Oh my, but I am certainly in trouble what with my poorly thought out support of anthropogenic climate change. Oh Noes. For shame on that entire scientific community for deceiving me like this.
I am, of course making a concession in saying the sun is warmer now, but here’s the trick: The number of sunspots has not changed significantly in the past 20 years, and yet global temperature has increased 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit in that same time. Therefore, even accepting that the hotter sun might have an effect, it is clearly a quite frankly negligible one. Perhaps I should requantify my statement then and change my statement to read 99.9% instead of the full 100%, but I believe the point remains intact.
If its true, if the science is good, you all should welcome debate - shouldn’t you?
Provided that by debate we’re talking about the free exchange of ideals evidence and demonstrable hypothesis, and not, for instance, Pedro saying “How globe be warmenering when am snowing now!! S-M-R-T!!” or your making unscientific corporate shills aalogous to Galilieo, yes, debate is always welcome. Debate that denies the existence of the evidence however is not.
Incidentally, I would actually like to thank the anti-science crowd here, because without the constant drones of “nobody can prove the sun exists” and such, I never would have done my own research and found out the truth for myself. I’d recommend they try it themselves, but that might deprive other people like me from having their minds broadened in spites of people like them.
Please, Rex. I’m not talking about our debates here. I’m talking about the ones that mean something - in the public arena where people like Lomborg have been assaulted for dissenting views and various state climate experts have been to told to shut up by their political masters and the Weather Channel that believe dissenters should not have their jobs. Why is that necessary - if the science is indisutable?
And BTW, its ironic that you choose Pedro as your example on this site of bad things said. Have you seen some of te truly evil things said by your side? And Pedro is the problem?
And, its funny, but I think of real science, as opposed to Hollywood/politicized science, as the real good guy in this. Thre are scientists out there who won’t sell out and seek the truth - instead of whats politically expedient.
Dugg, those debates have basically already been had. While I would like to say that if people are fervent about this issue that it is because they see this as a critical issue that cannot be delayed in dealing with, it goes without saying that of course physical assaults on people like Lomborg are deplorable and inexcusable. Controversial though he may be, I actually agree with his suggestion of incorporating cost-benefit problems into the environmental equation (though I believe that such concerns only bolster the environmental argument in the long run). That kind of debate should always be welcome in the political arena when considering actions. However, the problem is that isn’t the kind of debate currently being had. Ignoring the people on the fringe who cannot contribute anything (hippies and rednecks alike) the main “debate” is between the scientific community and monied interests. Teh 3vil Librul Medier portrays the debate as being even, giving dispassionate scientific inquiry, criticism, and methodical research equal footing to an exxon-funded think tank. Loath though you may be to admit it, the comments section here is a microcosm of what the debate has become, Analysis vs Anecdote. Yes, anecdote has come from the GW side too, but the difference is that Anecdote is all the opposition even has any more. From Pedro’s theorum “Existense of snow proves nonexistence of GW” to your own “Though nothing can prove it, its theoretically possible that in the future, GW-deniers may be like Galielio,” proof takes a backseat to rhetoric. There may be (again, I dont necessarily agree, but there very well may be) drastic consequences if we fail to act, and minimal costs if we act for naught (how screwed we’d be if we developed renewable alternative energy sources), and all the anti-science crowd can do is talk, bluster, obstruct and obfuscate to turn the issue into one of opinion over fact. That is why there is so much opposition within the scientific community to GW deniers. A meteorologist who denys (or the more likely, and profoundly weak-kneed “has some doubts about”) the science behind GW is like a doctor who “has some doubts” about the possibility that smoking a pack of Marlboros per hour might contribute to lung cancer.
I see no problem with having a debate where the strictly enforced condition for admission is “you must at least acknowledge the existence of this much empirical evidence to enter”, but that isnt the debate beind had either here or politically. Pedro says there is no number, I give him a number. You say theres no proof it isnt non-natural, I prove it basically can’t be natural. Someone else says there’s cost problems, I argue that while energy saving devices may require upfront investment, not only is the long term savings greater, but the investment itself can be offset with govt initiatives. Time and time again the entire opposition argument is coming from nothing more than ignorance.
“We dont know enough because we dont know X.”
“Actually, Very much X, here’s the chart.”
“Oh, well then we dont know Y now.”
“Y’s on page 5.”
“Ah, Z then.”
“Your thumbs covering it up, see? Says Z right there.”
“Oh… well still we dont know X though.”
“I JUST SHOWED YOU X.”
“Don’t shout me down just because I’m not convinced, why are you so opposed to open debate? For all you know I’m Einstein! And Jesus!”
Rinse. Repeat.
I think my points have been miscontrued.
I point out the snow only as a counter-point to the folks who say that a week of indian summer proves global warming. temperatures fluctuate around a mean, and a hot spell is likely to be “evened out” by a cold one.
I did ask for a number, but a scientifically derived one. I wasn’t really interested in a one randomly pulled from someones rectum.
If the science is so clear, there should be a very well defined percent, or even range of percentages of human involvment of the current warming cycle. But I haven’t seen a good one.
My percentage is 100%, a number I havent pulled from my rectum, anus, colon, sphincter, nor indeed my ass itself. I come to this conclusion having basically discounted the potentiality of Solar and Ecological factors being the primary cause behind the temperature increase (see above) and barring the “invisible spaceship with a heat-ray” theory, human activity is basically the only remaining cause. Hence, 100%, derived logically and scientifically. Granted, theres a margin of error there, not only because I am not a professional, since as I explained the sunspots and ecosystem can have some effect, but it is clearly minimal, and not significant to the discussion.
If you feel my 100% is incorrect though (say 5% margin of error) and the ecosystem and sun are not relevant contributors to the temperature increase, then seriously, what else is left but the alien heat ray? In what way is a number that accounts for the other rational possibilities insufficient?
Likewise my 66% for the fossil fuel level of contribution to the problem was inferred from the data I linked to earlier. I can show you the math if you like but it would take quite a while to type it all out since I cant just show the spreadsheet I used.
Two numbers, neither ass-based. Your rebuttal?
My rebuttal is simple: Garbage in, Garbage out.
Your start with a bunch of assumptions and act as if they are all proven. Your assumptions are faulty. You discounted other environmental and solar factors! Essentially huge issues, which have, in the past, duplicated the events of today, even without any extra carbon production by mankind. Then you hang your entire theory on greehouse gases and say QED, done!
I could show you a chart demonstrating a correlation between the number of toilets and the warming of the environment and it would be a like-wise useless theory to explain the warming
These systems are enormous, and to some extent, self-regulating. Homeostasis is a powerful thing within ecosystems…..
Your start with a bunch of assumptions and act as if they are all proven. Your assumptions are faulty. You discounted other environmental and solar factors.
Not surprisingly, you’ve again told me what I’ve done without actually reading what I said. Go and check again. I discounted environmental and solar factors only, ONLY after having shown them to be negligible to the issue at hand. Having done that, the only rational remaining cause can only be anthropogenic (or, again, invisible alien heat ray).
I have acknowledged that yes, there are such things as environmental and solar influences on global climate, and listed fundamentally what they are, however, I have shown that while there is a history of said factors having effects, that those same factors are not relevently the cause of the current temperature increase. If we accept that the temperature change didnt just magically happen and was in fact caused by something, and that something isnt predominantly solar or environmental, then it follows that the only remaining option, being man-made, must be the correct one.
So to summarize: I present evidence, you say it doesnt exist. I present theory, you say its flawed in ways it obviously isn’t. I present argumentative proof, and you throw toilets at me. (though I of course find this particular graph more enlightening, yar) I provide analysis, you provide empty rhetoric. Show of hands, anyone surprised?
(Sigh)
Your evidence is vaguely waving your hand back over your shoulder and claiming you “proved” something elsewhere….what a crock. Though the indisputable FSM pirate graph is much appreciated
But, you want more data, fine. Here you go….This just debunks your main argument regarding warming being 100% due to man…follow the link for maximal data…
“The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Well lets not even pretend thats an objective source, their frontpage is selling all kinds of conservative literature, links to ConservativeBookClub.com, and the top is pushing that story about Al Gore uses electricity which proves global warming is a lie or whatever it is (a press release put out by an illegitimate organization with an obvious political bent).
So to address the article itself.
Why is the Question-Answer format intellectually reprehensible?
Because it allows the writer to frame the entire issue in a way that they can control what information they give out without addressing actual issues. He can ask questions that would be asked by people who, while not necessarily ignorant, are misinformed at the very least to for instance consider “greenhouse gasses” inherently evil, when they are, of course, the very thing that makes Earth habitable. He can then control both sides of the debate that happens exclusively in his own head in order to push one side over another, and make himself look not only heroic but balanced as well.
Wow, what a cunt.
I know, yeah.
Me being smarmy aside, your quote is the real relevant part here, so lets go over it.
“The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.”
Well first as I understand it its actually around 0.75 degrees Centigrade, 1.3 Fahrenheit, in the past century. He leaves off the time scale (150 years rather than 100) and of course selects the lesser of the two equivalent numbers to rhetorically minimize the issue. Not a lie exactly, but deliberately misleading, particularly considering that the last ice age (the one that in particular hit Greenland) was due to a change of only 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit, so to pretend, as he seems to, that 0.6 Centigrade is something to sneeze at is plain wrong. Let us press on.
“At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.”
So by his math he’s basically saying that between 1850 (when the measurements began) and 1950, the global temperature increased by more than 0.3 centigrade? Well I cant dispute that, but again he’s phrasing it to make it sound like he’s not comparing a 100 year timescale to a 50 year timescale. Heres a chart that backs up what he very specifically said, and shows yes, an increase of .03 centigrade over those 100 years, and also shows nearly twice that increase over the last 50 years, for purpose of clarification. Again, not a lie, just delibarately misleading.
“Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change…”
I’m not assuming they stopped entirely, nobody is. They were tested against and shown not to be very significant factors in the current change. Like I demonstrated with the oceanic temperature and the sunspots, they still happen, they just arent the cause of this change, or play such a small part as to be statistically insignificant. I realize he’s talking about the 1850-1950 scale though, so lets continue.
“…then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
The math is as follows:
+30% CO2 = +.33 Degree Centigrade
Therefore:
+100% CO2 = bit less than +1.0 Degree Centigrade
Which sounda about right I suppose, that the doubling of CO2 gaseses should lead to a 1 degree increase. We’re at a 0.75 degree increase right now. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in guoting this article, did you just substantiate my point?