Search results

OK, rateS, not that it matters. So what are the rates? THe time frame you refer to is the bottom axis of the graph, which is the time elapsed. I'm refering to the timeframe for the rate of change. The rate (or rateS) must have a timeframe, like degrees per century. What is it?

All of which happens naturally, yet life goes on. Since I live on land, and since additional CO2 enhances life on land, I'm quite happy with warming and rising CO2 levels. It stands to reason that it's possible we have killed off species that we didn't know about, but then, we'll never know for...

See above.

You enjoy twisting my words around. The first sentence is yours, attributing that sentiment to me falsely. You use the second sentence of mine as evidence, but it won't wash. It was in referral to fearmongering about the amount of CO2 in the oceans. I pointed out that much larger levels...

I've been sparing with Ton for quite some time. As a result I'm very familliar with strawman arguments. He is the master, after all.

Oh I understand the simile, it just doesn't describe what I'm saying. Yup, the time is on the bottom axis and displays it in linear form, actual passage of time. But if the left axis is a rate of warming there needs to be a timeframe So what is the timeframe?

I know exactly what the graph shows. You have demonstrated considerable intelligence so I can't understand why you don't. You're saying the graph shows the rate of warming in degrees C. OK, so what's the timeframe? Per year? Per decade? Per century? Per millenium? You gotta have one...

I did? I said life flourishes, I said we flourish, both of which are true, and cooling periods are generally harder on life and much harder on us, all of which is true. Or if. You want to base policy on unknowns???:roll: Of unknowns? I was referring to unknowns in that particular statement...

Youre basically just repeating yourself and ignoring what I said. So, let me repeat you too: That is not what I have claimed. That's spin, that's strawman. My tactics have been to put claims of impending doom into proper comparitive context. For example, the suggestion that increased CO2...

As I said, you're the master of the Strawman. Let's disect this statement. "It's a common tactic of his." First you set the tone. The inferrence is that I use an illegitimate tactic that dodges any real addressing of the topic under discussion. "Nature has done worse than us before"...

Uhmmm....who said that? Who is???

This is a common tactic of yours. Create a false position, attribute it to me and then argue against it, claiming thereby to have defeated my position. You are the master of the strawman.

:roll: No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

You're still not seeing it. Look at the left side of the graph. THere you get the information of what is being measured. If, as you contend, the rate of change is being measured, you would see something like, "temperature variations in degrees C per century." THere needs to be a timeframe if...

What explanations? I said polar bears have survived previous warm periods. You asked for evidence. The evidence is that they're here. What more evidence could you want? THe contention that we're killing off thousands of unknown species is what's silly. THat's a logical reason to assume...

I'm well aware of the meaning of significant. The reason any variation up to 150 years is insignificant is because such changes are frequently contained withing the larger trends. 150 years is a very small time when refering to climate trends. It's true that small trends can be detected, such...

Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release – Telegraph Blogs

Well DUH! No kidding! As I've mentioned several times before (please pay attention this time) a ten year cooling is much too short to estabish a trend. Likewise, a 30 year warming (like the one that was used to set off the AGW scare) is also much too short to establish a trend. Even the 150...

Here's one of the graphs in question once again: The left vertical axis is described as "Temperature variation" (aka anomalies). Let's look at the two dates of 2007 (just because they're easy). The first shows a variation (anomaly) of 0.6 degrees over the baseline. The second shows an anomaly...

Well then why don't you spell it out for me? (If they're unknown, how do you know that they exist?) I may have misunderstood you. Many environmentalists hugely inflate the numbers of species exterminated by humans by claiming that we've wiped out thousands of species that we never knew...