On the contrary I cited 11 different data sets in post #149 that support my point that recent warming has been much faster than the natural warming that occurred after the Little Ice Age. You have cited zero data sets that support your claim to the contrary.
The thing holding India back is not her population or lack of a food surplus. India is still recovering from decades wasted on a socialist economic system. Your data is at least 9 years old and things have changed quite a bit, with ?India entering into space and their research has expanded enormously.
Losing its standing as most populous nation in Europe did not help France remain powerful, but only insured it would be eclipsed by Russia and Germany.
One thing I’ve learned is they either rely on no data, just guess-work. Or they use fallacious logic, red herrings, and strawman arguments, including "policy implications determines the scientific facts (r/t the other way around), etc. And they form circular firing squads, shooting down other contrarian arguments against AGW.
Climate science appears to the best field one can be in-when you are wrong that proves you are right…
Does this mean you have finally apprehended the truth, and having done so, will leave the intellectually unwashed alone as you hold it hostage?
Well, shooting the messenger always seems to suffice for AGW proponents who have run out of legitimate arguments.
You cited ‘adjusted’ data set that are filled with fudged numbers. Literally the product of subroutines need ‘Fudge Factor’ in one case. That means you have presented nothing at all.
They ‘know’ they are right because they have managed to get the media behind them, little else.
By citing my source I have opened it up to your criticisms that is all “fudged data”, etc. But by your not citing your chart or other source, you have carefully protected it from such criticism. Understandable, if you don’t have any confidence in your source. Remember, all you need to do is to cite some trusted source that shows temperature readings during the industrial age did not rise any faster than the rise that occurred coming out of the Little Ice Age, which was your claim.
But don’t you see, Leaf, this is one of their red herring fallacious arguments.
This isn’t a game and neither of us ‘wins’ anything in the discussion. I am sharing my thoughts with you among others so that I can learn and hone and more effectively organize what I think I know.
Like I said-its a great profession to be in. It is impossible for to be wrong-why even when their models are falsified it proves they were right!
And it’s not just oil we’re running out of, but concomitant pollution that’s harming people and other resource depletion, with dire projections for our human population on into the future (our kids & grandkids). Here’s a graph to add to yours:
What argument is fallacious? That I think that there is large room for doubt about AGW? Wow, I must admit I amazed at how some have turned science into a religion where one cannot dare question the dogma of AGW theory.
Because that might also explain much of the warming, Einstein.
Well, since the support for AGW is basically 1) the Earth is warming, 2) we know CO2 is a Greenhouse gas and 3) we are producing more greenhouse gas, therefore 4) our increased CO2 emissions MUST be the cause of that warming, to show OTHER sources for that warming is germane for most thinking people.
Because AGW fanatics have insisted that the melting Artic ice has been proof that the globe is warming. Why is the Artic ice shrinkage proof of global warming but the Antarctic ice growing is only weather?
‘Mommy the doggy ate my homework!’
Wow, you sound like a real genuine expert.
I agree it is not a matter of winning or losing. I think each of us is trying to convince the other of their point, as we should. But an argument is much more convincing when it is backed up by something other than someone’s gut level feeling. That is why I have not asked you to take my word for anything I have said. You don’t know me from anyone, and there is no reason you should take my word for anything. Instead I have referred you to publicly available sources that show that temperatures have risen substantially faster in the industrial age. You dispute the accuracy of those sources, but many learned people do not. If you are going to propose the exceptional view that my sources are corrupted, and if you expect your proposal to be convincing, you should cite some better source of data that supports your point more than it supports my point. Then you would be on the road to being convincing. But if you have no interest in convincing anyone of your point, then just keep right on making unsubstantiated claims. (Saying that your claims are supported by public data, but declining to point to that data does not count as substantiation.)
No, but it makes the argument** for** AGW a little less convincing.
Have you ever read of a FAIL test result for AGW?
Evidently AGW must be taken as a matter of Faith. Absolutely nothing disproves it. If its hot in December that is proof of AGW. If it snows in Sept that proves AGW. If Sea ice shrinks that is proof of AGW-if sea ice increase that is proof of AGW.
The Greenland ice core samples show evidence of a series of warming and cooling that has occurred throughout our planets history.
So what are the conditions by which you think AGW shows it is false?