Data taken over an extremely short period of time that doesn’t show anything occurring currently that hasn’t happened during previous inter-glacial cycles.
The difference between this cycle and previous cycles is that there’s a lot of money to be made peddling the gloom and doom predictions of runaway warming unless something is done immediately to stop it.
No, math is the language of science, if, would, could, might, and maybe is the language of speculation.
What is missed by those who don’t support the view of the vast majority of climate scientists is the consequences of climate change on humans and contemporary society.
You are seriously mistaken in your post.
Sorry, you must have missed the sub discussion about the ozone hole. Samm claimed the current smaller size had nothing to do with temperature which I corrected him on. But he was thinking surface temps only and I pointed to stratospheric temps.
The difference between cycles is we know what caused the previous warming cycle and that same cause is not causing the warming today.
No … the language of science is “if - will” not “if - might.” “If - might” is speculation.
More pretentious drivel. When are you going to contribute something pertinent to the discussion?
Yeah, let’s talk about those consequences. In the history of modern man (the last 6-8000 years or so,) warmer has always been better than colder. All of the great civilizations came about and flourished during warm eras, some of which were warmer than the current era. If you want to talk about dire consequences from climate change, you should be talking about cooling.
No … as noted below, my initial response to the claim about the ozone hole was that it had nothing to do with global climate change. That IS about surface temperature. It was you who switched to stratospheric temperature.
No, your initial post was that the ozone hole reduction had nothing to do with temperature. That is exactly what you posted. No direct reference to surface temperature.
Wrong! My original post on the ozone hole is right there in my previous post. Temperature came up later and I specifically clarified it with an edit because you began changing the topic from climate change (which is surface temperature) to stratospheric temperature. Any confusion is on your part, not mine.
Here is your original response to me … (note: “… it is very warm in the Antarctic.”)
I’m glad you edited and clarified. I had responded to your post where you said that temperature had nothing to do with the current small ozone hole.
Good thing I cited NASA showing you were wrong that temperature did effect the size of the ozone hole.
You likely were thinking AGW, and that is fine. I was just correcting your post where you were quite broad and didn’t want anyone misinterpreting you.
And your statement “ The hole is currently so small also because it is very warm in the Antarctic.” was not broad? “In the Antarctic” refers to surface temperature for anyone reading this thread, not stratospheric temperature.
You screwed up, just admit it and move on.
Apologies. My statement was similarly broad and open to misinterpretation. But it was no mistake. I had read the NASA article on the ozone hole before I initially responded to you and felt that your statement that the hole had nothing to do with temperature needed a correction, since I had just read the article. I never made any mention of surface temperatures or global warming.
As I have pointed out previously it is illogical and quite frankly stupid to ignore the advice of experts. Therefore, I will defer to the experts of climate scientists’ view rather than the likes of Alan Jones, Craig Kelly et al.
No, that is purely your misunderstanding of the statement.
Your mistake was assuming that I had made a mistake. My statements were completely correct for the context of both the statement by LetFreedomRing that I first responded to, and of your statement that the reduction of the ozone hole was due to it being warm in the Antarctic. The context of both his and your statements as they were posted were about global warming (i.e. surface temperature) and thus my answers were made accordingly.
Pretentious word salad is not a valid argument.
The only one here not understanding what has been said is you. And that includes Borgia_duide.
