No, actually, you didn't. Your "facts" were flat-out wrong, and from crackpots. Check your sources, and if it's not a peer-reviewed scientific article, it's not a source, period.yah know Mokele......i presented you with facts to back up my case from reputable sources and not crack pots.....
You are aware that it only took about 10 degrees to cause the Permian Catastrophe, right? The event commonly called The Great Dying, which wiped out 90% of life and left our ancestors as stunted little mouse-things scurrying about the feet of the dinosaurs for 180 million years?the whole argument is based on changes of a few tenths of a degree.
If you expect climate data to show a smooth, simple trend, you're just plain stupid. All climate data has scatter because it's a big, complex system.out of the last almost 120 years out of the 10 warmest on record, five are pre WWII. only 3 have occured in the last 10 years. doesnt that seem odd to you if the earth is infact on a major warming trend?
Oh, and did you *also* notice that 4 of those 10 years were in the past decade?
Furthermore, there was actually a temporary dip in temperatures that partially masked global warming around the 40's, but not for a good reason - it was due to huge quantities of aerosols such as the sulfur compounds responsible for acid rain. Once they disipated to more tolerable levels, you see the same long-term rise again, even faster than before.
Ice cores. I win.my problem with the global warming scare is there isnt chit for hard data before the 1880's or so.....all you have to back up your data is theory's.
Tree rings. I win.
Seafloor sediments. I win.
What was that about data?
Um, yes, we can. Between ice cores, tree rings, isotope analysis and 100 other methods, we *can* reliably construct models of past climate.i agree that the general data based on ice cores and sea floor sediment is prolly more or less right however that is not hard data about what temps were. you cant tell me the average temps for Europe, NA and Asia for 1659 and 1754 based on ice core data, you can tell me that it was likely warmer or cooler than 10 years previous but that is about it.
Hell, do you know what one of the biggest controversies in climate studies is right now? The Cretaceous. Yes, as in T. rex, Triceratops, raptors, and that lot. We can reconstruct climate from 65 million years ago, and you're pissing and moaning that we might be off by a degree or two about the summer of 1745 in London?
You were wrong - nobody ever said 40 years. The number is 15 years, which fits right in with reality.as far as CFC's and the ozone layer i seem to remeber being told the hole in the Ozone layer was due to CFC's let loose 40 years or so previous cause the CFC's take time to travel into the upper atmosphere, let alone be concentrated at the south pole. why in the hell did a crack down on CFC's in the 80's and 90's close up the hole so fast?, it shouldnt have started closing up till the 2050's or so. based on what we did 10 years ago. either the scientists were wrong about what CFC's due to the ozone layer, or how fast they move, or it was part of the natural processes......
So, ready to give up? Or are you going to keep parroting crap from Faux News? Why not just sit down an admit that the real scientisits actually know what they're doing?