O.K. Robert I'll give a listen to that talk. It strikes me though that you just dismiss real specialist scientists who disagree as being fundies or paid shills.Robert Tulip wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
This is a simple point of logic. If C02 levels drive warming and cooling the lag should be the other way round.
You really don’t get it do you? As the talk by Richard Alley linked in my previous post notes, there is a fairly simple scientific concept called "causality". Have you heard of it? That talk is really worth watching before you make too many more extremely false statements.
Under natural climate change, the main driver is orbital factors. These cause warming and cooling which in turn cause CO2 change due to ocean uptake and rotting rate. The science is clear and simple, as per the link that you have ignored.
You have nothing to say about the blatant dishonesty and incompetence of the people working for the IPCC at East Anglia.
The data you provided is for natural disasters in a general sense. You can say if you like that earthquakes are caused by global warming, but I doubt it, to put it mildly. I questioned your statement about super storms specifically.Robert Tulip wrote:As for super storms the frequency and strength of hurricanes has not increased according to the the data.
Epic fail by Flann
Image
Here's an article referencing data on major hurricanes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... 80e777c5c0
Bad link here. Google Forbes. Major hurricanes less frequent, if interested.
I didn't dispute the fact that the Arctic has been melting in recent decades. The question is whether it is unusual or unprecedented.Robert Tulip wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
data doesn't support the claim that melting in the Arctic is unusual or unprecedented
Epic fail by Flann
Image
There seems to have been a strong melting period also between 1920-1940 which it recovered from. And as far as I tell the Antarctic is not melting but increasing in ice.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/hist ... 1920-1950/
I don't know why you think that Christians should have a particular slant on this. In fact they don't. Like I said even among U.S. evangelicals there are many who support the climate change caused by man doctrine.Robert Tulip wrote:Sorry Flann, the experts all agree on the science of global warming. The only expert difference is around what to do about it. By and large, those who disagree with climate science tend to be trolling fundy liars or fossil fuel shills.
The Pope goes with it too,
I'm skeptical but that's because of the many problems I've encountered with the official line.