Lindsey Graham Challenges Republicans: ‘Tell Me Why’ You Deny Climate Science

[thundley4]

Could someone tell me what the odds would have to be for any given event that is supposed to unfold over decades or centuries to have only detrimental long term impacts and zero beneficial ones?

I think the left is worried about climate zones flip-flopping. Hot, arid areas may eventually become greenbelts and the current places where most crops are produced may turn arid. They're being selfish scrunts.

[Carl]

A different gloBULL warming thread but if you want to see how religious it all is to the left.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027260667

Response to StrongBad (Reply #37)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 02:25 PM

Star Member geek tragedy (51,127 posts)
42. No, that's a lie on your part. A complete fabrication you pulled out of your ass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=79C0E71D8F381CFD5963059264CE3062.c1

(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause


You are simply lying when you state that only 25% of scientists think that human activity is causing global warming.

Lying. Lying. Lying.

Not expressing a contrary opinion.

Just lying.

The numbers are 96-97%. 25% explicitly stating it, and another 75% implying it. You are simply lying about what "implicit endorsement" means. Lying.

Anyone who reads this thread, who understands the English language, and who can do basic math, can easily see that you're lying in order to carry water for the Koch Brothers et al.

Not expressing a contrary opinion.

Lying.

You can almost see the tears and spit. 

[Carl]

From that second thread and everything you could wan`t to know about the DUmp and the left.

Response to StrongBad (Original post)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:41 PM

Squinch (9,701 posts)
152. This thread is just one more brick in the wall of proof that DU has jumped the shark.

This is actually a discussion here, and the OP hasn't been locked.

Hey, kids! Didn't the New York Post say something about how SUV's are good for the environment? If Rupert says it, then it MUST be true!!!l~!!

Very sad indeed.

[miskie]

The first, sort of accurate, system for measuring temperature, using a standardized scale was invented less than 300 years ago.

A network of weather stations numerous and sufficiently widespread to be called a global network, has been around for, possibly, a century, and has gaps due to events like World War 1 and World War 2.

Indirect means of "measuring" temperatures before the invention of standardized thermometers are based on assumptions that may or may not be correct.

Warmistas talk in terms of tenths and hundredths of a degree Celsius, but instruments of that degree of accuracy are far more recent than Gabriel Fahrenheit.

The first means of somewhat accurate measuring the extent of ice in the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland and various glaciers were satellites placed into orbit in 1979.

Putting this all together, mankind's ability to take the measurements to observe Earth's climate only does back about three centuries. High accuracy instruments are much more recent. Having the global network in place to use the term "global" meaningfully only goes back about a century (possibly much less), with gaps. Ice cap measuring capability is less than 40 years old.

IOW, Warmistas do not have the data necessary to be making the claims they are making. They are like little boys playing with themselves in the bath and excreting from the wrong body orifice.

I had a similar discussion with a liberal nutbar on Facebook a few months back. The bottom line is that what we know about the climate and any variations versus the time period between ice ages amounts to nothing more than statistical noise. He then went on about ice cores, and CO2 levels contained within being lower than than they are now, and I reminded him that CO2 is water soluble, and doesn't remain CO2 forever - even in ice.

He never replied - thus endeth the discussion. 

[ChuckJ]

There are actually some pretty clever methods of analysis in figuring out past climate, not necessarily temperature by itself.  One of the better-known ones is tree ring analysis, which by overlapping the patterns in living trees with samples in artifacts can trace back several thousand years, which doesn't necessarily tell you that much about temperature but more about growing conditions, such as the combination of sun and rainfall.  Less well-known, ice cores from glaciers and ice caps can go back tens of thousands of years and the microbubbles in the ice can be analyzed to determine atmospheric composition, like what the percentages of oxygen and carbon dioxide were during periods of before, during, and after the ice ages...however that produces a correlation, the causation part is a lot sketchier.  Another method that does get a good picture of temperature ranges is examination of pollen grains in sediments, which can also go back thousands of years, pollen grains are damn' near indestructible, they are distinctive for different species of plants, and the temperature/humidity ranges in which particular plants flourish or fail are pretty well established.

DAT, I agree with pretty much all of what you said; however, I still feel that anything prehistoric is speculation. Perhaps accurate. Perhaps not so accurate. I'll try to explain my position. A scientist can go out tomorrow and cut down a tree. He can examine the growth rings of said tree. He can pull the recorded climate data for that area. Then he can go cut down another tree from another location and examine those growth rings. He can, once again, pull the recorded climate data for that area. He can do the same several times in several area, and after those comparing climate conditions and growth rings he can deduce that if you see characteristic "x" in the tree ring it corresponds with climate conditions "y". The problem is that just because "y" causes "x" today it does not necessarily mean that "y" caused "x" 10,000 years ago.

On a similar note, growing up I enjoyed eating oysters. I ate them prepared in many different ways. Based on that evidence it could safely be deduced that I am not allergic to oysters. Around age 12 something happened. Any time I ate oysters, no matter how they were prepared, I'd break out in hives and swell up everywhere. For several years I tried to eat oysters. Every time it was the same reaction. Hives and swelling. Based on that evidence it could safely be deduced that I am indeed allergic to oysters so I stopped eating them. Then when I was 20 years old I was dating a girl who wanted me to eat oysters. She knew I was allergic so I'm suspicious that she was curious about the swelling part. Being young and stupid I ate some for her. To her regret nothing happened. I've eaten oysters now for about 30 years without any problems. Based on that evidence, it could safely be deduced that I am NOT allergic to oysters. Once "y" didn't cause "x". Then "y" did cause "x". And then "y" didn't cause "x".