You have zero proof of anthropogenic "global warming", except faulty predictions based on faulty computer models and charts from govt-funded 'experts' who can't prove their theories...along with the same loud cast of anti-freedom lunatics who champion every government power grab.
No irrefutable proof, no action.
End of story.
I understand graphs can be manipulated... conservatives have shown that ability many times. I'm just wondering what your opinion of the graph is and why I don't understand it. I realize your little cryptic mind games is just deflection because you know full well that what you are about to say is going to be ridiculed and is absolute nonsense, since the graphs I posted were from leading and accepted researchers in the field of climate science. Doesn't mean it's a 100% fact or accurate, but unless there is research done by other expert climate scientists that prove it to be incorrect, there is really nothing you can say to dispute it that anyone would take seriously.
If your reasoning is that the Earth is much older than the graph shows, that is a pretty silly argument, lol.
There's plenty of proof. Let NASA tell you. They are much smarter than you, trust me.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.[SUP]1- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[/SUP]
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.[SUP]2[/SUP] Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.[SUP]3[/SUP]
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.[SUP]1"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/SUP][SUP]Ummm, you don't fuck up the global economy giving into Marxist rage based on "very likely"
You show me a "warming graph" over x number of decades and I'll show you a cooling or warming period over a similar time frame before homo sapiens roamed the Earth on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old.
"Climate" has been "changing" forever...the only people who believe AGW are people who profit from it.
There's a reason China and India pay lip service to this scam, but that logic is lost on the "true believers" [/SUP]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/SUP][SUP]Ummm, you don't fuck up the global economy giving into Marxist rage based on "very likely"
You show me a "warming graph" over x number of decades and I'll show you a cooling or warming period over a similar time frame before homo sapiens roamed the Earth on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old.
"Climate" has been "changing" forever...the only people who believe AGW are people who profit from it.
There's a reason China and India pay lip service to this scam, but that logic is lost on the "true believers" [/SUP]
[SUP]
Hahahahaha, so because they say "very likely" instead of we are 100% sure, which scientists never say, you are taking that as evidence that there is no global warming? You have no knowledge of science what so ever. Your argument about how old the earth is or how much the climate has changed in the past is so laughable it borders on pathetic. As if that has anything to do with humans burning fossil fuels.
Who cares. What does that have to do with humans burning fossils fuels and pumping billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere?
[/SUP]
Yea, let's be more like China and India. They definitely are people that we should listen to about environmental issues, lol.
Shows us your evidence. You are just looking dumber every post you make claiming the graphs are manipulated without actually telling us what is manipulated. Conservative science right there! "You know they are manipulated, I'm not going to tell you why, but you know they are". Yea, you seem really intelligent.
[SUP]
They say things like "very likely" because they have no definitive proof.
See how that works? The sane crowd asks for definitive proof and the climate nutters starts scrambling and playing word games - and get caught manipulating data. All of these climate nutter shenanigans do a HUGE disservice to science.
'billions' actually sounds scary...until you realize we are talking an infinitesimally small percentage of the atmosphere.
But scaring people with big numbers sure is fun!
[/SUP]
China has surpassed the US economically and India is not far behind, but again, reality (the reasons behind their economic ascension) are lost on a guy stuck in a 'Progressive' time warp with an ideology that is flushing his country down the toilet.
Lmao, they say things like "very likely" because they have a lot of evidence that supports their hypothesis. Not that they are just guessing and they "might" be right. Basically this means that NASA is telling you, you are "very likely" to be wrong. I'm going to have to go with NASA on this one man. It was very difficult, because you seem to be such a knowledgeable guy.
Who cares about it's relative size to the atmosphere. Once again, I will have to side with NASA on this. And once again I will apologize. These decisions are not easy to make as you have demonstrated the fact you are an expert in everything.
There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
China has 800 million more people than us. The fact it took them this long to produce more than us is the most amazing part of that.
Your game playing only makes you look dumb. Either let us know what you believe is manipulated in the graphs or just admit you are dumb and making shit up. It doesn't matter to me either way, because I'm going to side with the expert scientists over someone that uses the Earth's age as a reason man can't change climate.
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,[SUP]1[/SUP]and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Acebb looking dumb as always, lmao!! He's even trying to argue what "very likely" means.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Acebb looking dumb as always, lmao!! He's even trying to argue what "very likely" means.
