Two-Year Global Cooling Event?

[Mountain Man]

I can't speak for Starlight, but I explain this "inconvenient truth" by pointing out that it's a hoax, and the so-called satellite pictures of Antarctica are actually Egyptian pyramids shown in Google maps.

Ok, we'll toss that one out.

But there are other legitimate examples of evidence of a warm climate under layers of ice, including the other two I referenced; and here's two more to offset the hoax article:

"Receding Swiss glaciers incoveniently reveal 4000 year old forests – and make it clear that glacier retreat is nothing new"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/...s-nothing-new/

"Highest Ice Age human settlements found in the Peruvian Andes [...] implying more moderate late-glacial Andean environments"
https://www.latimes.com/science/scie...023-story.html

[Roy]

Ok, we'll toss that one out.

But there are other legitimate examples of evidence of a warm climate under layers of ice, including the other two I referenced; and here's two more to offset the hoax article:

"Receding Swiss glaciers incoveniently reveal 4000 year old forests – and make it clear that glacier retreat is nothing new"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/...s-nothing-new/

There's nothing inconvenient or unexpected about that discovery. Variations in glacier extent and the warm period 9-5 kya were known about years before that article was written. It's not evidence of a warmer climate, any more than the Mediaeval warm period is, only of periodic variation within the boundaries of the current climate.

So let's toss that one out too.

[Mountain Man]

...evidence of [...] periodic variation within the boundaries of the current climate.

This is another one those times when I'll just sit back and wait for you have one of those "Oh, right..." epiphanies.

[Roy]

This is another one those times when I'll just sit back and wait for you have one of those "Oh, right..." epiphanies.

While you're doing that, you might ponder whether I'm already aware of the 'epiphany' you have in mind, and know why it doesn't apply. I suggest you include in your ponderings the fact that I immediately saw through an obvious hoax that you swallowed uncritically.

[Mountain Man]

While you're doing that, you might ponder whether I'm already aware of the 'epiphany' you have in mind, and know why it doesn't apply.

Oh, you'll get it eventually.

[Roy]

Oh, you'll get it eventually.

You're being remarkably cocky for some-one who can't tell the difference between Antarctica and Egypt.

[shunyadragon]

This is another one those times when I'll just sit back and wait for you have one of those "Oh, right..." epiphanies.

Try some legitimate comprehensive scientific references that are comprehensive concerning Global Climate Change instead of selective dishonest references like seer used to begin this thread.

[shunyadragon]

Oh, you'll get it eventually.

Egypt has those pointy triangle things. Antarctica has penguins.

[Mountain Man]

You're being remarkably cocky for some-one who can't tell the difference between Antarctica and Egypt.

Yes, I didn't catch that one article. You got me there.

Let me repeat: that one article. Everything else I said stands without refutation. But, sure, do go on about that one article as if it made up the whole of my contribution to this thread.

I'll conclude with saying that I agree with you that whatever changes we see in the global temperatures throughout the ages -- and in more recent history -- are simply the "periodic variation within the boundaries of the current climate".

[Roy]

Yes, I didn't catch that one article. You got me there.

Let me repeat: that one article.

That one article shows you don't know enough not to fall for obvious hoaxes. If you can't spot them, you won't stand a chance on anything more subtly flawed. You might think you're contributing to the thread, but it's obvious to others that you don't know how the horsies move.

Anyway, it's two articles. The second one was just as bad, but not as obviously wrong.

I'll conclude with saying that I agree with you that whatever changes we see in the global temperatures throughout the ages -- and in more recent history -- are simply the "periodic variation within the boundaries of the current climate".

I don't think you're actually agreeing with me, since those global temperatures go back further than you think the earth has existed. I think you're still trying out your 'epiphany' that the recent changes are also just "periodic variation within the boundaries of the current climate".*

Unfortunately for your possible 'epiphany', the changes over the last few decades don't match the previous variations - they're much, much more rapid than anything seen in the historical data. There's an excellent illustration here.


*I could be wrong - you've made so many bizarre claims** I can't be sure you aren't confused in some completely unexpected manner.

**"[skin cells] don't respond to stimuli"
"'the scientific definition of life' is neither vague nor ambiguous"
"the Bible is a fixed document"
(paraphrased) I've never visited the site I just cited

[Mountain Man]

That one article shows you don't know enough not to fall for obvious hoaxes.

No, it proves that I was in a hurry and didn't give it a proper read. Look, I've owned up to it, conceded my error, given myself a slap on the wrist, put myself in the corner until I've learned my lesson, sent myself to bed without supper...

Now what about all the other sources I've referenced?

I don't think you're actually agreeing with me, since those global temperatures go back further than you think the earth has existed.

How long do you think I think the earth has existed?

(Hint: The number you're thinking of is almost certainly wrong.)

There's an excellent illustration here.

I'm wondering if we're long past time that "argument by xkcd" should be considered a formal fallacy.

As for your signature quote, I wonder why you still refuse to add a link to the thread in question where it would expose the fact that you've deceptively taken my quote out of context? On second thought, I don't wonder why at all.

[Roy]

No, it proves that I was in a hurry and didn't give it a proper read.

You shouldn't have needed anything more than a quick look to be suspicious of it.

Now what about all the other sources I've referenced?

Based on the other ones I've glanced at, they don't seem to be much better.

How long do you think I think the earth has existed?

(Hint: The number you're thinking of is almost certainly wrong.)

Less than 10,000 years. Am I wrong?

I'm wondering if we're long past time that "argument by xkcd" should be considered a formal fallacy.

Complete failure to address any substance noted.

As for your signature quote, I wonder why you still refuse to add a link to the thread in question where it would expose the fact that you've deceptively taken my quote out of context? On second thought, I don't wonder why at all.

Because I don't recall you ever asking. Link added.

[Mountain Man]

Less than 10,000 years. Am I wrong?

[carpedm9587]

This is largely a pointless thread, IMO. The fossil-fuels industry is flooding the market with pseudo-science and doubt, like the lead and tobacco industries before them, and some people are simply falling prey to the pseudo-science. Arguing against those who have succumbed to the conspiracy theories is pointless. It's like arguing against someone who is convinced Area 51 exists and they have been abducted by aliens.

For those interested in why the last two years are perfectly normal, there is a good article here.

[Mountain Man]

The fossil-fuels industry is flooding the market with pseudo-science and doubt...

And the environmentalists are flooding the market with pseudo-science and fear-mongering...