An Open Invitation:

[radioprius1]

Dear people who believe that man made global warming is a real and occurring threat,

I challenge you to provide examples of conclusive experiments that lead to repeatable results that demonstrate:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;

3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;

4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;

5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;

6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;

7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;

8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;

9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;

10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists (aka, skeptics) to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue.

This thread will not disintegrate into a flame-fest. Please only post if you have links to papers with conclusive results acquired from repeatable experiments that answer one of the ten bullet points above.

All posts not containing such information will be ignored, and should be considered trolling. Also, posting thoroughly debunked (via peer-review and the Wegman report) hockey-stick graphs by Michael Mann will be ignored and should be considered trolling.

Thank you,
RP1

[JimboPalmer]

Originally Posted by radioprius1

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

Mankind did not exist until this century? Who were the bipeds until 1910 and how were they changing the color of moths?

Peppered moth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by radioprius1

6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;

Of course the natural ecosystem can adapt as it has in the past, it is called 'Mass Extinction' and the surviving species go on.

(I do not have an educated opinion about global warming, I am just answering heavily based questions)

[KCobby]

I know I shouldn't feed this...but...

Originally Posted by radioprius1

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists (aka, skeptics) to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening....

When the vast majority of scientists across the world accept climate change as valid, it is indeed the responsibility of those who don't believe to prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by radioprius1

Also, posting thoroughly debunked (via peer-review and the Wegman report) hockey-stick graphs by Michael Mann will be ignored and should be considered trolling.

So you think all of the theories have been debunked when in fact all of what the skeptics call "proof" has been reviewed, researched, and dismissed. You think there is information that people don't know about that "disproves it" but it's simply not true. Every single piece of information that has been tested is available to the public.

The fundamental problem lies here: you believe in a:
conspiracy theory:noun;a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

There is no secret plot. You are sadly misguided.

Besides, why are you consistently trying to stir the pot here? You know this is a forum where many (if not most) people are supporters of this. It's like you're a Christian on a Jewish forum trying to "convert" people...it's unsavory at best, and will have similar results.

[dg1014]

KCobby you do realize that the 97% of 30,000 scientists surveyed

consisted of only the 3000 that responded dont you?

That means either 27k of the scientists thought it was BS or they didnt think the survey was worth responding to

[dg1014]

Originally Posted by JimboPalmer

Mankind did not exist until this century? Who were the bipeds until 1910 and how were they changing the color of moths?

Peppered moth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Of course the natural ecosystem can adapt as it has in the past, it is called 'Mass Extinction' and the surviving species go on.

(I do not have an educated opinion about global warming, I am just answering heavily based questions)

The reason Radioprius is asking about the last hundred years is industrialization,automobiles and the like. Pre 1900 we could not have had a significant influence on the environment. Even with our current environment activity we only account for a hair less than 3% of C02 produced

[dg1014]

Fact of the matter is liberals are just looking for a new money making scheme for themselves. Global Cooling was proved wrong in the 70's that didnt work. Save the rainforests didnt make them any real money.

They didnt make enough money on Acid rain. So Climate change they figure they can legislate to death and make a killing.

Thanks to climategate AGW is a huge failure for them as well

[radioprius1]

Originally Posted by JimboPalmer

Mankind did not exist until this century? Who were the bipeds until 1910 and how were they changing the color of moths?

Peppered moth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Jimbo,

Thank you for posting. But this classic example of evolution by natural selection in no way answers the question. We are talking about the variations in global climate in this century being greater than variations of global climate in other centuries. Ie, that we've had some massive previously unheard of change in global climate this century.

[hyo silver]

Originally Posted by dg1014

Fact of the matter is liberals are just looking for a new money making scheme for themselves...

Bull!

Follow the money, you say, but ignore the oil industry? What a joke.

edit: Tony's language edit accepted. But what happened to my other politely worded post in this thread?

[rpatterman]

Everyone certainly knows by now that the stock market went up 35% in the first year Obama was in office. But what many people do not know is that a study showed that the more bandwidth used arguing over the difference between weather and climate, the quicker the stock market went up. This study was done by Michael Mann (or maybe it was Michael Moore, I get those two confused). I would show
the graph that shows the proof, but it looks too much like a hockey stick.

BTW, what happened to the posts on this tread from yesterday?

[JimboPalmer]

Originally Posted by dg1014

Pre 1900 we could not have had a significant influence on the environment.

So the bit about Clovis man and mass extinctions in North America is bull?

Quaternary extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The moths changing color due to burning coal 200 hundred years ago in the UK is bull?

Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Industrial_revolution

I am not sure I am in touch with the feeling that man became a disturbance just recently. I am not able to discuss rationally based on that premise.