A long series on climate change

**Cullion** · Posted On: 12/09/2012 11:56am

Originally Posted by W. Rabbit

YEP YOU WON TEH A W G DIBATE CULL! GRATS!!!!#

Seriously, shut the **** up, non-scientist. Have you stopped to wonder why NO ONE else on the forum ever posts anything to back you up? It's because you're a fart in the wind.

Originally Posted by Sang, in this thread

After reading this thread I'm leaning more towards Cullion's side, he's the only one making logical sense. Before reading this I was a mild GW believer, but now thanks to Rivington's logical fallacies and W.Rabbit's stupidity I'm again skeptical. Maybe we just need some "for" global warming people on here who actually know something about the topic.
Read more at http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show...sXMFuUaPi6J.99

You're an embarrassment to your own cause.

P.S. You keep claiming to be a scientist, Rabbit. In what fields have you published ?

I am going to ask you the question again, rather than reply to your emotionally fraught ad-hominem.

"Do you now reject the hypothesis that increasing CO2 will lead to increased global average temperatures?"

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 12/09/2012 12:11pm

Originally Posted by Cullion

P.S. You keep claiming to be a scientist, Rabbit. In what fields have you published ?

Forensics.

Now go and enjoy your victory party (of one).

Don't forget to brush after!

**Cullion** · Posted On: 12/09/2012 12:16pm

Originally Posted by W. Rabbit

Forensics.

Now go and enjoy your victory party (of one).

Don't forget to brush after!

Please cite the papers.

***Tranquil Suit*** · Posted On: 12/09/2012 12:21pm

TLDR

So is global warming real or not?

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 12/09/2012 12:22pm

Originally Posted by Cullion

Please cite the papers.

I will if they are ever relevant to a discussion. They are not relevant to this one, but that's your red herring, not mine.

I mean, if you don't accept cited sources from NSF, EPA, NOAA, IPCC on AGW....how could my own humble work in another field influence your thinking?

Oh and posting Sang's comments...don't make me start to pull up all the quotes in this thread that called you on your bullshit assertions.

10 years from now when there is even more solid agreement on AGW, you'll still be the one screaming from the rafters

"BUT CLIMATEGATE BBBBBBBRLLGHGHGHGHHGHG READ TEH EMAILZ FAGOTE!"!"!

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 12/09/2012 12:23pm

Originally Posted by Bling Bling

TLDR

So is global warming real or not?

Let me check my works....nope....nothing in there that helps answer this question.

Damn....I guess we have nothing but the sham organizations known as the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Scientific American, Nature (one of the most respected peer reviewed journals in the world for over 100 years)....

....damn if only we had CREDIBLE sources like Cullion gets from his secret underground connections...you know, the REAL science.

***Tranquil Suit*** · Posted On: 12/09/2012 12:28pm

So is that a yes or a no?

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 12/09/2012 12:30pm

Originally Posted by Bling Bling

So is that a yes or a no?

NASA says yes: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

My answer is mu. And any self-aware rabbit knows that is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Be seeing you...

**Cullion** · Posted On: 12/09/2012 12:31pm

Originally Posted by W. Rabbit

I will if they are ever relevant to a discussion. They are not relevant to this one, but that's your red herring, not mine.

They are relevant to a your specific claim in this discussion to be a scientist.

You have accused me directly of being a liar in this thread in your post where you attempt to dismiss my very specific comments on each of the post-climategate investigations, without stating what you think it is that I'm lying about. I would therefore like to check a few of your own claims made in this thread in attempt to give your words more authority.

The other claim of yours I wish to check, unless you retract it, is that you know Richard Muller. I would like you to PM me your real name so that I can contact him and check this statement.

In the meantime, please answer the question:

Do you now reject the premise that increasing atmospheric CO2 should see increasing global average temperatures?

**Cullion** · Posted On: 12/09/2012 12:32pm

Originally Posted by Bling Bling

So is that a yes or a no?

Some version of the hypothesis may turn out to be true, but the current models don't explain the 16-year lapse in warming and in it's present state there isn't sufficient evidence to support massive economic burdens of the kinds being proposed in international climate treaty meetings.

Negative feedbacks may mean that the global average temperature increases so little in line with CO2 that the effect is harmless, or completely wiped out by other things which affect global average temperature.

You will note that Rabbit avoided answering whether he thinks temperature increases with CO2, and then posted a graph of CO2 from NASA.

What he didn't show you, and probably wasn't aware of, was that atmospheric CO2 has been much higher than it is now, in Earth's past including during periods when temperature was decreasing.