AGW Denialists like to cherry pick data to suit their propaganda based and fossil fuel industry funded models

Take for example the classic CHOPPED graph that shows a correlation between cyclical sun spot activity and global warming trends


And why does the graph mysteriously stop at around 1980? Well let's take a look at the rest of the data folks.


Oh dear there seems to be an upward global warming trend after 1980 but the solar radiation variation curve just doesn't match. We will have to just leave it out. Nobody will notice in the mass media. It's not as if we are publishing the first propaganda graph in a peer reviewed scientific journal

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 10:36pm:



Quantum physics has what bearing on climate science?

The statistical aggregation of weather measurements is the climate. That is all it is. A rainy climate is one where you have to take a umbrella with you in the morning more often.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

Glad you cleared that up

Obviously you lack a basic scientific grounding or training

(Do you know what changes in average global temperature is required in order to trigger an ice age or indeed a major ice melt phase on the earth? - didnt think so. If we burnt ALL the known fossil fuel reserves in the earths crust how much of the atmospheric molecular oxygen content will be consumed? Both of these question are high school level chemistry and phsyics questions. 5 marks each you have 30 minutes)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 3:55pm:


Did you understand the question?

Do you know why the molecular Oxygen level in todays atmosphere is about 21%?

How did it get to that level and WHY?

How is the fossil fuel reserve related to the O2 level in the earths atmosphere?

As a greedy species we have burnt less than 1% of the total fossil fuel reserves on this planet

If we buirn approx 5% of the fossil fuel reserves we would ramp up the atmospheric CO2 level to approx 1% (or 10,000 ppmv)

Under those CO2 levels the earths average surface temperature would increase to about the boiling point of water (~100degC)

although we would vanish from the scene well before that.

So my question to you is HOW MUCH FOSSIL FUEL DO YOU WISH TO BURN AND WHAT CO2 LEVEL IN THE EARTHS ATMOSPHERE ARE YOU WILLING TO TOLERATE BEFORE YOU FRY OR MELT?

(or another way of posing that question is "why are you willing to cook your future progeny and relatives?")

Gizmo,
Can I ask what your scientific background is exaclty?

(just wondering whether you inderstand the difference between the dynamic Carbon cycle that is essentially biologically based and the naturally sequestered and STABLE/STATIC carbon in the earths crust)

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 4:58pm:



That is precisely the sort of question the pope asked Giordano Bruno -what are your quals to argue?


Or as AGW alarmists are asking everywhere - why don't they believe us?

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 3:46pm:



Look, piling on the stupidity won't help you.

Climate science is the statistical analysis of the weather.  Climate science has abolutely no data other than measurements of various aspects of the weather. Getting all po-faced and snooty about high school science will not disguise your inability to think.