Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Is the warming being cancelled by anthropogenic forces? Maybe. The paper argues it's possible. I say it's possible.
|
You are saying what I also said. Then trying to put words in my mouth. So let's again discuss the details.
Your paper speculates for discussion purposes that oscillating anthropogenic forces have temporarily slowed global warming. An oscillation that is only speculated; without any numbers or facts. A speculation to only discuss the significance of pollution numbers. Your paper makes no valid claims about global cooling. Only defines how pollution might slow global warming. And how anthropogenic oscillations might vary the pollution predictions. But somehow you *know* oscillating anthropogenic forces exist? Your citation does not even *know* that.
Numbers from five responsible science organizations (as reported by The Economist chart) say global warming has continued. Numbers also confirmed by Dr Muller in a project funded by the extremist Koch brothers. Therefore when speculated anthropogenic oscillation goes the other way, then rising temperatures may increase even faster. How do you convert that from your own citation into global cooling?
Demonstrated repeatedly is why your numbers and claims are bogus. Only political newspapers claim global cooling. Even your own citation admits to no science for that claim. Posted was The Economist chart taken from numerous science organizations. Why do you ignore those numbers? Because you cannot dispute them. How do you explain why Dr Muller's analysis, funded in part by the Koch brothers, also contradicts your beliefs. Simple. You pretend those numbers do not exist. If facts are ignored, then your need not question your beliefs. I believe that is ostrich thinking.
Your citation even says mankind is creating global warming. Why did you conveniently ignore that? Why do only give credibility to obviously tainted numbers from political news sources (who sound so much like Fox News)? Why do you intentionally ignore numbers summarized by The Economist? Why do you ignore confirmation, in testimony before a Republican Congress? You cannot dispute facts. So you ignore them? This is Saddam’s WMDs all over again. Numbers from science are damning. So you ignore what you cannot explain? That is your proof of global cooling?
Your citation even says why temperature increases will continue. Somehow you even ignored that detail to *know* global cooling is occurring? Ok. Where are your numbers that dispute your own citation? Also not provided. Why do so many numbers from science just get ignored only when convenient?