Arctic scientist under investigation

[AntalKalnoky]

And debunking your Post # 197 link, Kimmie: deepclimate.org/2009/07/16/friends-of-science-theyre-back
desmoblog.com/friends-of-science

 

[AntalKalnoky]

I’m addressing what YOU post - I don’t see that as stalking

Where please?

You ‘addressing’ EVERY single Posting of mine wrongly Is Stalking. Please look up Definition of Stalking, a Legal Court term; Its Violation of TOS. And you or someone AGW filed a False complaint against Me: a Terms of Service Violation, when I tried answering Most of your Anti-Science AGW Postings.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Kimmie, it may be good to Remember Sunday Sept 4 2011 Epistle reading: Romans 13:8-10. Both the Franscican Friar Mass I attended Homily, and that of the EWTN Conventual Mass Priest homilized the Same Point: always Love; solves/prevents the Gospel citations of Covet, Kill, etc., Loving God, respecting Neighbor as we want to be respected Prevents those 10 Commandment forbiddens. :hey_bud::bible1: Terms of Service Prohibits Harrassing a Person, name-calling, etc., etc.

• We need to help each other discover, discuss Truth, not Bother and harass another.

 

[kimmielittle]

Debunking your Post # 197

So you are saying there is no such thing as Milankovitch Cycles?

What they wrote and referenced about Milankovitch Cycles is a lie?

The “Friends of Science” is a Canadian Oil Industry funded Against Global Warming Agenda ‘scientists/educators’ group, modeled on U.S.A. AGW Models, with Political Agenda.

IS what they said about Milankovitch Cycles correct or not?

Sourcewatch isn’t that the two guys who claim the USA hid Mad Cow disease?

activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/12-center-for-media–democracy0

Isn’t Sourcewatch Wiki based, so basically anybody registered can post and edit on the site?

No wonder the wikipedia source

 

[estesbob]

I am talking about you CONTINOUSLY Continuing to Stalk (Follow me non-stop) Trying to Falselly Disprove my every Post, and Personally False Inuendo attack Me. Those are Several Catholic Answer Forum Terms of Service Violations.

The best way to stop people from disproving your posts is to quit making posts that are easily disprovable.

 

[kimmielittle]

And you or someone AGW filed a False complaint against Me: a Terms of Service Violation, when I tried answering Most of your Anti-Science AGW Postings.

Just a point of clarification.

No one needs to file a complaint on CAF to receive an “infraction”.

CAF Moderators view threads themselves.

Accusing people without evidence

 

[AntalKalnoky]

The best way to stop people from disproving your posts is to quit making posts that are easily disprovable.

It’s opposite of ‘disapproving posts’; It is Falselly Avoiding the Prime Ecvidendce I post, to Argue some unsupportable opinion Slant Publically, on Everything I post, as she did Again with false new slant above. No one has disproven anything I’ve Posted. Stalking is Defined as * Following a person with Intent to Harm*, as you’re begining again, Estesbob, with your False Slant here. At least you stopped; Kimmie Continues.
No one except you and Kimmie have ever done this on CAF or Anywhere.

 

[Tigg]

It’s opposite of ‘disapproving posts’; It is Falselly Avoiding the Prime Ecvidendce I post, to Argue some unsupportable opinion Slant Publically, on Everything I post, as she did Again with false new slant above. No one has disproven anything I’ve Posted. Stalking is Defined as * Following a person with Intent to Harm*, as you’re begining again, Estesbob, with your False Slant here. At least you stopped; Kimmie Continues.

                                                                                                                     No one except  you  and Kimmie  have ever done this  on CAF  or  Anywhere.

I’m not only astounded, but confused as well. This is a public board where issues are not only discussed, they are debated. I see nothing disrespectful in any posts to you, (only refutation of your claims) and being respectful does not equate to agreement with your opinions. There is no infringement to forum rules - it is the issue itself that is being argued. If it were me and I found the content upsetting (as I often do on the illegal immigration threads,) I would no longer care to debate the issue and I would just leave the thread!

 

[AntalKalnoky]

I’m not only astounded, but confused as well. This is a public board where issues are not only discussed, they are debated. I see nothing disrespectful in any posts to you, (only refutation of your claims) and being respectful does not equate to agreement with your opinions. There is no infringement to forum rules - it is the issue itself that is being argued. If it were me and I found the content upsetting (as I often do on the illegal immigration threads,) I would no longer care to debate the issue and I would just leave the thread! The Issue here is Science; Scientific Evidence of Global warming, not opinions. The ‘student’ has literally Stalked my Every single Post, to try to Unscientific opinion prove me and science wrong. She is Violating Online and CAF TOS, in Harrasing me, and telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about, personal attacks. Haven’t you noticed? She has not refuted Any of my statements, if you read my Corrections replies.

 I    began Ignoring her yesterday;  if you notice   she is  again   falselly questioning my integrity:  post   # 213                                                                             Well over    a Hundred posts  here     show her  and my  points.  Nothing  more need be said.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

The best way to stop people from disproving your posts is to quit making posts that are easily disprovable.

Bob, please show Any of my posts that have been “Disproven”, by You or Her. Please give the Thread and Posting numbers. Want to check your how “Easily”. npatrol: No one has disproven or argued my points except She and You. Your boat seems kinda small and leaky.

                                                                                                                     Coast  Guard  tows  are not free  anymore,  since Reagan introduced Fees  on everything, including National Park  visits.  Notice  little people pay fees now, while the Richest   pay   Nothing:  GE   paid Zero Federakl Taxes  most of Decades, like Last  2 years.    Chaney  has arranged  Federal Welfare Payments to thwe Zero taxes, most Profitable:  over $50  Million each  federal Welfare on GE  and Exxon-Mobil     annually.                       Please prove me wrong, Bob.

 

[estesbob]

Bob, please show Any of my posts that have been “Disproven”, by You or Her. Please give the Thread and Posting numbers. Want to check your how “Easily”. npatrol: No one has disproven or argued my points except She and You. Your boat seems kinda small and leaky.

                                                                                                                     Coast  Guard  tows  are not free  anymore,  since Reagan introduced Fees  on everything, including National Park  visits.  Notice  little people pay fees now, while the Richest   pay   Nothing:  GE   paid Zero Federakl Taxes  most of Decades, like Last  2 years.    Chaney  has arranged  Federal Welfare Payments to thwe Zero taxes, most Profitable:  over $50  Million each  federal Welfare on GE  and Exxon-Mobil     annually.                       Please prove me wrong, Bob.

Why? So you Can put me on ignore after after I destroy your arguments like Kimmie did? It is easy to “win” when you ignore those who point out your errors.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hat Tip to ANNE2 :tiphat::tiphat:

realcatholictv.com/cia/04GlobalWarming/

GLOBAL WARMING UNMASKED by RealCatholicTV

After watching video, click on site to review documentation.

Obama had a reason for moving “Faith Based Initiatives” under the EPA. After watching video and reviewing documentation in entirety - you will know why.

realcatholictv.com/cia/04GlobalWarming/

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Hat Tip to ANNE2 :tiphat::tiphat:

realcatholictv.com/cia/04GlobalWarming/

That link is not “Catholic”, but an independent Right Wing type Agenda Opinion web that has done Zero refutation or scientific evidence AGW. It criticices even the USCCB Policies, in addition to universally recognized and Proven Begining GW, with ‘secret agendas’ CIA creates. CIA was Not even “The First Online TV network” because it is Online; EWTN was First and is now All Media Catholic Site.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Why? So you Can put me on ignore after after I destroy your arguments like Kimmie did? It is easy to “win” when you ignore those who point out your errors.

Bob, cite One Post Number and Thread where you or Kimmie “Disprove” any of my accurate, unbiased postings, please. Not wise to try to disprove Science or Catholic Inherent Social Concern Agenda (which is the Same as Christ’s.)

I don’t “argue”. :tiphat: I’m not into ‘winning’ or ‘losing’, but correcting misrepresentations.

 

[kimmielittle]

To prove human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming, the following would need to be observed:

1:Sustained unusually high global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

2:Ongoing rising global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

3:Clear evidence that carbon dioxide raises Earth’s global atmospheric temperature;
WITH,

4:Clear evidence that human production of carbon dioxide controls global
atmospheric CO2 levels; WITH,

5:Clear evidence that warmer temperatures are catastrophic.

ALL FIVE HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO PROVE THE CLAIMS OF AGW AND CO2 IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF CLIMATE.

NO ONE…NOT IPCC…NOT ANYONE has made even one of these evidences - let alone connecting Two to each other.

This would result in empirical observational evidence.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

To prove human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming, the following would need to be observed: Your assertion is mistated: Global Warming is Beginning: Future Tense: Caused, not past tense.

1:Sustained unusually high global atmospheric temperatures; WITH, Opposite of “Sustained”; Repeated New Record numbers severe weather: (a) Tornadoes, (b) Highest Average worldwide temps This Year, (c) most Record High Temperatures in record number of (c1)states and (c2) cities,

2:Ongoing rising global atmospheric temperatures; WITH, (See 1b and 1c above, I previously posted, you ignored)

3:Clear evidence that carbon dioxide raises Earth’s global atmospheric temperature;
WITH, my previously posted 600,000 year (a) air CO2 percent content, (b)Logarithmic C02 Record high Spike recent years, beyond atmospehe’s own capability to correct; and world Temperature history for 600,000 years same period, scientifically determined, and (c) ** The Large, Logarthmic Spike in CO2 content the last 200 Years of obvious industrialization.**

4:Clear evidence that human production of carbon dioxide controls global
atmospheric CO2 levels; WITH, See 3(c) definite evidence; “Controls” is incorrect, “Causes” is the correct word.

5:Clear evidence that warmer temperatures are catastrophic. Previously submitted partially: 2 mile thick Greenland Ice Melted would raise World Sea Levels about 20 feert (Ice Sheet Melt Vastly faster than had been thought); Antarctic Ice also at least 100 Feet. Know what that would do to Florida, the East Coast, etc., etc? Very altered world Climates: Sahara Bloomng, etc.

ALL FIVE HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO PROVE THE CLAIMS OF AGW AND CO2 IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF CLIMATE. (6) Incorrect again, previously documented. No one said CO2 “is the Main driver of climate”; It is the Now Record high, and Logarithmically Rising CO2 Levels of the last 200 Years that are Totally Altering the Earth, Our Home.

NO ONE…NOT IPCC…NOT ANYONE has made even one of these evidences - let alone connecting Two to each other. (7) The First 4 Have been firmly Scientifically established and accepted, and Real attempts to Try to Prevent, while still possible to Prevent, even by the Holy City. The IPCC, and Gore Independantly, Accumulated and Published the fully Agreed By Science, Scientific Findings.

This would result in empirical observational evidence The Empirical and Irrefutable Scientific Evidence and analyses are in, and only the Anti-Global Warming Financial Big Interests, and their 10% of Scientists, are trying to defame GW, Tangentially, as Kimmie Tries to Unscientific Methodly.
[SIGN] We are in the Proven Begining Stages of Most Dangerous to the Planet Home God Created’s SURVIVAL[/SIGN]
:hey_bud:

 

[Calliso]

To prove human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming, the following would need to be observed:

1:Sustained unusually high global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

2:Ongoing rising global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

3:Clear evidence that carbon dioxide raises Earth’s global atmospheric temperature;
WITH,

4:Clear evidence that human production of carbon dioxide controls global
atmospheric CO2 levels; WITH,

5:Clear evidence that warmer temperatures are catastrophic.

ALL FIVE HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO PROVE THE CLAIMS OF AGW AND CO2 IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF CLIMATE.

NO ONE…NOT IPCC…NOT ANYONE has made even one of these evidences - let alone connecting Two to each other.

This would result in empirical observational evidence.

1. What exactly do you mean by sustained do you mean just continuously getting warming year after year? If so even 100% natural climate change doesn;t work that way. The idea is you have to look over a long enough period of time *I think at least 20-30 years to see the real trend. Ideally longer I think, but lets take a look at a graph over a fairly long period of time
   data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif It is clear for instance that over a long period of time that temperature is rising you can see that with out any of the additional lines. But what is also clear that there is variablity it isn;t one straight slope up. There are periods of cooling within the other all trend of warming.
2. Over all global temperatures continue to rise as we have seen in the graph
3. Well over here is a overview of the history of the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. But this subject has been studied for over a 100 years and it has been show beyond reasonable doubt that yes co2 is a greenhouse gas. aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
4. skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to human activity comes from analysing the types of carbon found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.
5. skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm You are probably not going to get 100% proof though no. It is also important to note that a big part of the problem is the rapidity of the change. We can look at past climate change to see that rapid change can often be catastrophic.

But as I have shown actually yes most if not all these things have been shown. *though other then the part about co2 being a greenhouse gas and the currant rise being because of humans not sure what the rest actually has to do with AGW. Also if you are asking for 100% proof of anything in science well you really donlt understand how science works science does not prove things.

 

[kimmielittle]

1. What exactly do you mean by sustained do you mean just continuously getting warming year after year? If so even 100% natural climate change doesn;t work that way. The idea is you have to look over a long enough period of time *I think at least 20-30 years to see the real trend. Ideally longer I think, but lets take a look at a graph over a fairly long period of time
   data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif It is clear for instance that over a long period of time that temperature is rising you can see that with out any of the additional lines. But what is also clear that there is variablity it isn;t one straight slope up. There are periods of cooling within the other all trend of warming.

Pretty graph

What does it look like when Available Arctic SST are included?
What does it look like when Available Antarctic SST are included?
What does it look like extended out to now 2011?

We already know that GISS uses less instead of more information for assembling its global temperature dataset. But how could they explain the deletion of available Arctic SST data??

They try to explain their “divergence problem” with differences in Arctic coverage, by stating that they have more data than all the others, including CRU and NCDC. In fact, they have less data and they are even deleting a significant part of it – maybe in order to get the desired results?

Mr Jones

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

1. Over all global temperatures continue to rise as we have seen in the graph

AND that graph is proven biased.

1. Well over here is a overview of the history of the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. But this subject has been studied for over a 100 years and it has been show beyond reasonable doubt that yes co2 is a greenhouse gas. aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Green house gas - Correct…We also have water vapor as a green house gas en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Correlation does not equal causation. For #3 we need observational evidence of correlation and causation.

1. skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

But the human-fingerprint goes missing in Satellite and UAH datasets?

1. skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm You are probably not going to get 100% proof though no. It is also important to note that a big part of the problem is the rapidity of the change. We can look at past climate change to see that rapid change can often be catastrophic.

“Rapidity of the Change” What 5 months - 5 years - 50 years - 500 years - 5000 years?

How much of a change? 0.05C - 1.05C ? Can you provide observational evidence that these are catastrophic? What does history tell us of the LIA - MWP periods? archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

The preponderance of Observational evidence - Says Natural Climatic Changes have always occurred -

 

[AntalKalnoky]

This link helps explain the co2 lags temperature thing. skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm. It is always important to check to see if something already has an explanation before assuming it is some unanswered problem.

Also ocean acidification basically is refering to the fact that the oceans ph is lowering or becoming more acidic not that it IS acidic right now!

It is Long Time, Long term trends, data that are telling, not decades or centuries, Except the Crucial, Never before 200 Years Human Industrialization Caused Atmospheric CO2 Massive Increase, Never before. And the beginning Sea Level, Temperature, Weather Results. We learned these natural Temperaure Variations in Grade And High School Decadesc ago. It is Longest Term, Record High CO2 Spike in last 2 Centuries which IS THE MASSIVE WORRY.

 

[dmelosi]

It is Long Time, Long term trends, data that are telling, not decades or centuries, Except the Crucial, Never before 200 Years Human Industrialization Caused Atmospheric CO2 Massive Increase, Never before. And the beginning Sea Level, Temperature, Weather Results. We learned these natural Temperaure Variations in Grade And High School Decadesc ago. It is Longest Term, Record High CO2 Spike in last 2 Centuries which IS THE MASSIVE WORRY.

Just curious what was there 150 years ago that humans did that caused the increase?