First two sentences.
Come on, you can do this yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bølling–Allerød_warming
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bølling–Allerød_warming
No. You claimed that scientists couldn't explain that particular climate change - in fact there are hypotheses for why that occurred which are easily googled. Of course, 13,000 years ago means that these are hypotheses and aren't necessarily exact.
So, a typical Lee say one thing then move the goalposts somewhere else.
No - you wrote that the Climate change "narrative" pretends that humans didn't exist at that time.
Seriously, can you not even remember what you argued in the last half hour?
Oh wow, the climate has changed before. Never thought of that. Gee, can't be us doing it then.
I'm off to have a smoke, lung cancer existed before cigarettes, can't be the ciggies then.
Gee Lee, find something new, that one's been done to death, buried, cremated and even done a few rounds as a zombie over the last couple of decades.
DS
I'm off to have a smoke, lung cancer existed before cigarettes, can't be the ciggies then.
Gee Lee, find something new, that one's been done to death, buried, cremated and even done a few rounds as a zombie over the last couple of decades.
DS
They have hypotheses about the "mechanisms" which would be various and complex. Again, saying we can't draw conclusions about current changes - which are actually very well understood - because we don't fully understand a previous change is not an argument.
The Younger Dryas has not been discussed in this thread previously. Do you have any thoughts on it, or would you prefer it just went away?
My first thought is that humans existed in that period and I can't find any climate science narrative that pretends they didn't, despite your dumbarse claim.
Nope, your claim was that climate change science narrative pretends that humans weren't there, didn't exist yet. You failed.
Your best course of action now is just to admit you made that up and got it wrong. To err is human, after all. Then we can all move on and forget about this lame attempt to throw woo
No I did not suggest that. You are quite the liar and incapable of debating points raised, instead trying to catch the poster out on minutiae. If it was my site I'd be tempted to ban you.
Here it is again in the executive summary - "unprecedented in human history".
Clearly bunk.
You understand perfectly well the point I'm making. Address it if you want, ignore it if you want, but cut the *smile*.
Dude, I quoted your post twice. Your words. You wrote the climate change narrative claims humans didn't exist when this period happened. You were wrong. You can't show me any instance where any climate scientist has ever claimed any such thing.
Admit you were wrong and we can move on to the next part of your argument.
Because you are desperate to weasel out of it, here's what you wrote AGAIN.
Pretending I'm lying about what you wrote only makes you look more the fool.
Since you think having me banned is a solution to your error, let me help you out.
"I expressed that really poorly. Of course no climate change narrative claims humans didn't exist 13-15,000 years ago, that would be really stupid. What I should have said is that the extreme and rapid rapid climate change we are experiencing now is not the only example of rapid climate change in the last 300,000 years, here are some others".
"I expressed that really poorly. Of course no climate change narrative claims humans didn't exist 13-15,000 years ago, that would be really stupid. What I should have said is that the extreme and rapid rapid climate change we are experiencing now is not the only example of rapid climate change in the last 300,000 years, here are some others".
Now let's address this. You say the Lowy report quoted here ignores the rapid cooling event. What's the full sentence that you failed to quote properly?
"In this Lowy Paper we argue that there is no longer much doubt that
the world is facing a prolonged period of planetary warming, largely
fuelled by modern lifestyles, which is unprecedented in human history"
Note they are talking about a specific warming period of the duration and degree that we've seen in the last period of industrialisation. That's what they are saying is unprecedented, not the far bigger set of "abrupt change" that you claim. So in order to prove this claim wrong, you need to go and find a warming period of a similar duration and intensity to the one we are in now. Pointing out that there was an abrupt cooling in Europe 15,000 years ago doesn't help you. They also qualify it by saying "no longer much doubt" - they aren't absolutists after all.
If this were my site and you used misleading quotes in order to call other people liars, I'd have you banned.
Actually no I wouldn't. I'm all for freedom of expression and happy to argue on the merits instead of making weak insinuations, but hey, I'm a softie. I can usually rely on you to use dodgy sources. Or you don't read them properly. Or you use selective quotes to obscure the original meaning.
So apparently the climate changed 15,000 years ago.
It is a nice attempt at a diversion but it does not change the facts, which are:
DS
It is a nice attempt at a diversion but it does not change the facts, which are:
- There is an observed warming in the climate.
- The best and most credible explanation for the observed change is human activity leading to an alteration of the chemical composition of the atmosphere enhancing the greenhouse effect.
DS
The other part of this is that Lee sets up three gotchas - "the CC narrative claims humans didn't exist during a time of abrupt change" - nope, they never said that. That's a fail.
"Scientists have no idea why the abrupt cooling happened" - they pretty much do actually and in any case it's a logical fallacy to argue any doubt here casts doubt on our understanding of contemporary climate change. Fail number two.
His last failed gotcha is to misleadingly quote the Lowy paper to retrofit to his first gotcha. Lee's not a stupid guy, but his strategy is to hope we don't actually read anything he references. We did, so he failed. Again.
"Scientists have no idea why the abrupt cooling happened" - they pretty much do actually and in any case it's a logical fallacy to argue any doubt here casts doubt on our understanding of contemporary climate change. Fail number two.
His last failed gotcha is to misleadingly quote the Lowy paper to retrofit to his first gotcha. Lee's not a stupid guy, but his strategy is to hope we don't actually read anything he references. We did, so he failed. Again.
Here is the claim again for the trolls and the wilfully stupid, in a recent scripted spiel from Professor Alan Finkel ahead of Glasgow, with the blatant falsehood highlighted.
BUT ISN’T CLIMATE CHANGE NATURAL? WE’VE HAD ICE AGES BEFORE AND THEN THE WORLD HEATED UP AGAIN.
Yes, indeed, the world has cycled between ice ages and warm periods, with the ice ages repeating roughly every 100,000 years. Ice core samples going back about 800,000 years tell us that the temperature rose much more slowly coming out of the glacial periods than we are experiencing now. More importantly, if we don’t reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the global temperature will increase well above the highest level seen in the last 800,000 years.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/techno...s/news-story/e37e2c7ea5733b6d72b62fd2ba9b189c (paywalled)
We have a current temperature increase of approx. 1.1 degrees in 140 years.
Here is the rebuttal at Wikipedia, of all places.
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change
I'm not ignoring the facts at all, DavidSSS. Yes, it is warming slowly. No, there is no emergency. You on the other hand are ignoring facts that don't suit you.
Any true emergency wouldn't make concessions for the standard of living in China. It's totally absurd for proponents to look the other way on this.
Diverting again, but a bit all over the place there Lee, maybe you need a bex and a lie down. We know what is causing global warming now, we know it is happening quickly, crapping on about something which happened 15,000 years ago changes nothing about that and is just a diversion.
No emergency? You may not think trashing the only habitable planet we know of is not an emergency, but I reckon it is pretty damned serious.
DS
No emergency? You may not think trashing the only habitable planet we know of is not an emergency, but I reckon it is pretty damned serious.
DS
