Eight Questions for Clippo et al
1. Why can't warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?
2. Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?
3. Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?
4. Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?
5. Why did many of Earth's major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man's CO2 emissions?
6. Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earth's CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?
7. Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?
8. Why are correlations of Earth's temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth's temperature with CO2 levels?
Source for questions.
Eight Questions to kill the Kyoto Climate Protocol in 2012
Temperatures and sea level may go down as well as up, terms and conditions apply.
That alone removes objectivity at a stroke.Originally Posted by manbearpig
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
And questions asked by John O'sullivan - another irrational journalist.
Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
Denial is a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality.
So neither of you are able to answer even one of these questions ?
and 8 easy peasy questions made by an 'irrational' journalist (note the ad hom yet again by Clippo) completely and totally outwit and baffle the entire AGW consensus of thousands of scientists
Temperatures and sea level may go down as well as up, terms and conditions apply.
They are not questions. They are statements.So neither of you are able to answer even one of these questions ?
and 8 easy peasy questions made by an 'irrational' journalist (note the ad hom yet again by Clippo) completely and totally outwit and baffle the entire AGW consensus of thousands of scientists
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
A question usually starts off with; Who, Why, What, Where or When. So the eight 'statements' ARE actually questions. There are answers but the consensus will not admit them, for example ..They are not questions. They are statements
The answer to question 1 is;
Q: Why can't warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?'
A: because there is none.
Temperatures and sea level may go down as well as up, terms and conditions apply.
A better answer would be that alarmists are the wrong people to ask.
Then on to question 2.
What about asking why it has been warming faster?Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?
Call them questions if you like.
Loaded at the very least.
A very clear example:
It demands that you accept the statement, yes statement. If you don't, there is no feasible way of providing an answer.Why are correlations of Earth's temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth's temperature with CO2 levels?
A bit like "When did you stop having a conjugal relationship with your mother/daughter/dog?"
I'm sure you get the point.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
The source lacks any credibility. Why don't you formulate your own questions instead of repeating these loaded ones?
The one I have yet to have answered is;
[Is there any credible way in which the sea level can rise by more than the IPCC's worst case scenario, which anticipates a 6.4 degree global temperature rise, of 59cm by 2100? If so where is the water coming from? Whilst you are at it where is the water coming from for the 59cm? ]
There has been no answer to this since I began reaserching it the question so I have concluded there is nothing to worry about and the doom mongers are causing the deaths by malnorishment of many millions a week of the world's poor for no good reason.
I've finally got a web site to work!! See my page thingy.
gc - nice to see you back !!!
When I have time I will also try to point out the nonsensicality of these 'questions'
Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
Denial is a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks