PDA

View Full Version : global warming strikes again



namvet
01-20-2011, 12:57 PM
http://oi55.tinypic.com/jsodpc.jpg


http://oi53.tinypic.com/29wptop.jpg


http://oi55.tinypic.com/2463od0.jpg

my man Bryan to the rescue - 10-12" and more on the way sunday

Rockntractor
01-20-2011, 12:59 PM
I noticed our snow was a half a degree warmer!

Wei Wu Wei
01-20-2011, 01:01 PM
lol oh I get it. you believe that "global warming" means that there will only be hotter weather where you live.

Wei Wu Wei
01-20-2011, 01:03 PM
increased heat energy in the atmosphere changes the air pressure and the force of winds. increased wind is an increase of energy, which in the winter can bring huge amounts of snow to areas that don't normally get that much.

increased heat energy has LOTS of effects on local weather, not just an increase on the temperature

Apache
01-20-2011, 01:04 PM
lol oh I get it. you believe that "global warming" means that there will only be hotter weather where you live.

LOL! Can't one by you...:rolleyes:

Apache
01-20-2011, 01:07 PM
increased heat energy in the atmosphere changes the air pressure and the force of winds. increased wind is an increase of energy, which in the winter can bring huge amounts of snow to areas that don't normally get that much.

increased heat energy has LOTS of effects on local weather, not just an increase on the temperature

Man just shut up with that tripe, you aren't going to convince anyone.

Global warming and climate channge are bogus power grabs....

namvet
01-20-2011, 01:08 PM
well I live in a snow region. my snow is minus 10 degrees colder. :D

last winter 44" here. it wrecked a Christmas eve party I had planned. this storm is headed for the east coast. I heard

namvet
01-20-2011, 01:12 PM
LA


http://www.corpuschristidaily.com/ccpic/images/photos/PalmTrees%20snow.jpg

so this snow is plus 80 degree's ???? got it

The Night Owl
01-20-2011, 01:27 PM
The corollary of Namvet's argument is that a bout of unusually warm weather in one region proves global warming. He won't be making that argument though because it doesn't serve his purpose.

Wei Wu Wei
01-20-2011, 01:31 PM
the entire thought process is "global warming, hmm, sounds like the whole globe gets warmer!"

then scoffing at scientists who spend their entire lives researching it "ummm well it snowed yesterday those scientists are stoopid!"

namvet
01-20-2011, 01:42 PM
The corollary of Namvet's argument is that a bout of unusually warm weather in one region proves global warming. He won't be making that argument though because it doesn't serve his purpose.

yes i will. the bout here is as cold as its ever been. and always will be.

badswing
01-20-2011, 02:07 PM
the entire thought process is "global warming, hmm, sounds like the whole globe gets warmer!"

then scoffing at scientists who spend their entire lives researching it "ummm well it snowed yesterday those scientists are stoopid!"

so they changed the name to climate change for all us stoopid people. when that didnt work they changed it to global climate disruption and figured we were too stoopid to understand that and we would go away. the scientists who spent their entire lives researching this realized what a gravy train they had and when the numbers didnt add up decided to lie, as in 'hide the decline'. there have been billions spent on trying to prove anthropogenic global warming and they have come up with zilch. the problem now is the pacific decadal oscillation is negative running concurrently with a neg ANSO (atlantic) and the lowest level of sun spots maybe ever. result : 20, 30 years of this killer cold. now if there is something to this co2 and its warming effects creating a negative impact for the evil humans we will look at it as crying wolf and nothing will be done (even if we could). kind of like DDT, vacines and autism, the bird flu , the bovine flu, killer bees, the ozone layer, population bomb, etc ad nauseum.

Wei Wu Wei
01-20-2011, 02:36 PM
so they changed the name to climate change for all us stoopid people. when that didnt work they changed it to global climate disruption and figured we were too stoopid to understand that and we would go away. the scientists who spent their entire lives researching this realized what a gravy train they had and when the numbers didnt add up decided to lie, as in 'hide the decline'. there have been billions spent on trying to prove anthropogenic global warming and they have come up with zilch. the problem now is the pacific decadal oscillation is negative running concurrently with a neg ANSO (atlantic) and the lowest level of sun spots maybe ever. result : 20, 30 years of this killer cold. now if there is something to this co2 and its warming effects creating a negative impact for the evil humans we will look at it as crying wolf and nothing will be done (even if we could). kind of like DDT, vacines and autism, the bird flu , the bovine flu, killer bees, the ozone layer, population bomb, etc ad nauseum.

welp

you figured it out

namvet
01-20-2011, 02:55 PM
Scientist Predicts Ice Age Within 10 Years. others predict in 50 years or less


As evidence builds of the earth entering a dramatic cooling trend, another scientist has gone public with his conviction that we are about to enter a new ice age, rendering warnings about global warming fraudulent and irrelevant.



source (http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientist-predicts-ice-age-within-10-years.html)

so which is it plenty of ice cubes for martini's or a burned hot dog on a bun???

Articulate_Ape
01-20-2011, 03:03 PM
lol oh I get it. you believe that "global warming" means that there will only be hotter weather where you live.

I can't imagine where anyone would get such an idea.


Rising temperatures can and do arouse animals and plants prematurely from their deep snoozes, and another problem related to this is that not everyone wakes up at the same rate.

The synchrony that animals and plants have evolved to rely on is breaking down because species are responding at different rates to the changing environment, Inouye said. Or they’re responding to different cues. Some are responding to snow pack, while others could be responding to temperature. The groundhog may be awakened by the raising air temperature, but the alfalfa that they eat may not be budding because the ground is still covered in snow.

But are these earlier wakeup calls a manifestation of a warming climate or due to some other mechanism?

“We’re pretty convinced that this is connected to climate change,” Inouye said. “If the cue that marmots use to decide whether or not to go back into hibernation in April is air temperature and we know because of temperature records that one of the consequences of global warming is supposed to be rising air temperatures, then it seems like it’s a pretty easy link to make.”

Root also agrees that hibernation cycles are tied up within our complex ecosystem, with the climate acting as a major driver.

"Hibernation is shortening and it’s responding to warmth," Root said. "And the warmth is caused by humans. It has to do with our dumping carbon dioxide and methane and things like that into the atmosphere and using the atmosphere as a free sewer, basically. I have no doubt."

From here (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070201_warming_hibernation.html).


If you are going to lie, you had better have a good memory.

The Night Owl
01-20-2011, 03:28 PM
Scientist Predicts Ice Age Within 10 Years. others predict in 50 years or less

source (http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientist-predicts-ice-age-within-10-years.html)

so which is it plenty of ice cubes for martini's or a burned hot dog on a bun???


Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera

Background

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera is a researcher in the Institute of Geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Herrera holds a PhD from the National Aerospace University of Ukraine; his area of specialization is Remote-Controlled Airspace Research. His research areas include remote sensing systems, signal and image processing, planetary remote sensing, and prevention of natural disasters.

According to Google Scholar, Herrera has not published any work in peer-reviewed journals in the area of climate change.

http://www.desmogblog.com/victor-manuel-velasco-herrera

Zero published work on climate change. Fail.

badswing
01-20-2011, 03:41 PM
http://www.desmogblog.com/victor-manuel-velasco-herrera

Zero published work on climate change. Fail.

you quote realclimate and desmogblog.they are the problem. expand your reading.gelspan and littlemore feed off of schmitt and the rest at realclimate. they will say anything to keep this lie going.

Apache
01-20-2011, 03:52 PM
http://www.desmogblog.com/victor-manuel-velasco-herrera

Zero published work on climate change. Fail.

There is no real recorded long term history on climate. Everything that is out now is a guess, period.

Wei Wu Wei
01-20-2011, 03:53 PM
lol

Apache
01-20-2011, 03:57 PM
lol

Witty and original...Prove me wrong.

Articulate_Ape
01-20-2011, 04:12 PM
http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd359/JamesSavant/GlobalBoating.jpg

Apache
01-20-2011, 04:39 PM
lol

C'mon funny man, I'm waiting. Put up or shut up... Show the long term records on the climate.

NJCardFan
01-20-2011, 04:50 PM
lol oh I get it. you believe that "global warming" means that there will only be hotter weather where you live.

Huh. Silly me. And to think all these years I thought that the term 'warming' meant an increase in temperature. Can you direct me to where you bought your Bizzaro World dictionary because it seems I need one.

Molon Labe
01-20-2011, 04:50 PM
I guess that's one good thing about Wikileaks. Some of those cables exposed American and European officials blackmailing to advance their “climate change” agenda.

so it's been shown that it is an "agenda".

NJCardFan
01-20-2011, 05:01 PM
C'mon funny man, I'm waiting. Put up or shut up... Show the long term records on the climate.

What was the temperature like on Pangea?

Apache
01-20-2011, 05:08 PM
Huh. Silly me. And to think all these years I thought that the term 'warming' meant an increase in temperature. Can you direct me to where you bought your Bizzaro World dictionary because it seems I need one.

See, this is the second time this group of turds has been wrong. Back in the '70's we were giong to hit another ice-age, if we didn't change our ways. The '80's came and went without a single mastadon stampede...DAMMIT! Using the last of their Grant$$$, a group was in a bar lamenting the fact that they were not heroes. The ice-age never came because it was too damn warm... Wait! That was it! The Earth was warming, WE BETTER CHANGE OUR WAYS!!!!

Climate change is a catch-all. Get too warm... climate change. Get too cold...climate change...

They can't predict the weather for this Spring let alone climate 20 years from now...

Apache
01-20-2011, 05:11 PM
What was the temperature like on Pangea?

Nah. I'll be reasonable. The past 2000 years should do...;)

NJCardFan
01-20-2011, 05:39 PM
See, this is the second time this group of turds has been wrong. Back in the '70's we were giong to hit another ice-age, if we didn't change our ways. The '80's came and went without a single mastadon stampede...DAMMIT! Using the last of their Grant$$$, a group was in a bar lamenting the fact that they were not heroes. The ice-age never came because it was too damn warm... Wait! That was it! The Earth was warming, WE BETTER CHANGE OUR WAYS!!!!

Climate change is a catch-all. Get too warm... climate change. Get too cold...climate change...

They can't predict the weather for this Spring let alone climate 20 years from now...

Read Crichton's State of Fear. He has an interesting take on the global warming frenzy.

The Night Owl
01-20-2011, 09:38 PM
you quote realclimate and desmogblog.they are the problem. expand your reading.gelspan and littlemore feed off of schmitt and the rest at realclimate. they will say anything to keep this lie going.

If my source is wrong about Mr. Herrera then feel free to point me to any peer reviewed work he has done on climate.

Rockntractor
01-20-2011, 09:42 PM
If my source is wrong about Mr. Herrera then feel free to point me to any peer reviewed work he has done on climate.

Do you ski?

NJCardFan
01-20-2011, 09:53 PM
If my source is wrong about Mr. Herrera then feel free to point me to any peer reviewed work he has done on climate.

Why don't you do your own work and prove him wrong.

m00
01-21-2011, 02:07 AM
increased heat energy in the atmosphere changes the air pressure and the force of winds. increased wind is an increase of energy, which in the winter can bring huge amounts of snow to areas that don't normally get that much.

increased heat energy has LOTS of effects on local weather, not just an increase on the temperature

So what's the point of a scientific theory that's not predictive in any way? It sounds like "Global Warming causes stuff to happen that didn't use to happen... as much... in recent memory... in certain places." Useful.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2011, 12:11 PM
So what's the point of a scientific theory that's not predictive in any way? It sounds like "Global Warming causes stuff to happen that didn't use to happen... as much... in recent memory... in certain places." Useful.


just because global warming doesn't only, always, and uniformally result in higher temperatures doesn't mean that the effects cannot be predicted. for example, higher amounts of energy in the ecosystem - it can be predicted and tested and it can happen in many forms not just heat

NJCardFan
01-21-2011, 12:47 PM
just because global warming doesn't only, always, and uniformally result in higher temperatures doesn't mean that the effects cannot be predicted. for example, higher amounts of energy in the ecosystem - it can be predicted and tested and it can happen in many forms not just heat

Silly me again. OK, I'm going to heat up my dinner by putting it in the refrigerator. Yep, sounds like wee wee logic to me. :rolleyes:

Apache
01-21-2011, 12:59 PM
just because global warming doesn't only, always, and uniformally result in higher temperatures doesn't mean that the effects cannot be predicted. for example, higher amounts of energy in the ecosystem - it can be predicted and tested and it can happen in many forms not just heat

What's wrong WEE, can't find any proof? You're dumb enough to believe this crap, BACK IT UP! Show me long term studies on the climate. Unless you are a coward, in which case you will deftly ignore this... AGAIN!

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2011, 01:05 PM
Silly me again. OK, I'm going to heat up my dinner by putting it in the refrigerator. Yep, sounds like wee wee logic to me. :rolleyes:

hahah yes the global climate system is like your refrigerator.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2011, 01:07 PM
What's wrong WEE, can't find any proof? You're dumb enough to believe this crap, BACK IT UP! Show me long term studies on the climate. Unless you are a coward, in which case you will deftly ignore this... AGAIN!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+change+research

Rockntractor
01-21-2011, 01:14 PM
Weible is a product of our failed education system.

Apache
01-21-2011, 01:41 PM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+change+research

Nice try. Now, you do the searching to back up what you say I'm wrong about.

OH WAIT!!!!! You can't.... because there is none

AmPat
01-21-2011, 01:43 PM
increased heat energy in the atmosphere changes the air pressure and the force of winds. increased wind is an increase of energy, which in the winter can bring huge amounts of snow to areas that don't normally get that much.

increased heat energy has LOTS of effects on local weather, not just an increase on the temperature
The hot gas coming out of your pie hole is causing more global warming, please cease.:eek:

AmPat
01-21-2011, 01:45 PM
Silly me again. OK, I'm going to heat up my dinner by putting it in the refrigerator. Yep, sounds like wee wee logic to me. :rolleyes:

Shut up and get back to baking those popsicles.:mad:

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2011, 01:54 PM
Nice try. Now, you do the searching to back up what you say I'm wrong about.

OH WAIT!!!!! You can't.... because there is none

the search was done for you but I understand some people need to be spoon fed

Step 2: I clicked the 3rd link on the google page

Step 3: http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/index.html


Climate is the average pattern of weather over the long term. The earth’s climate has warmed and cooled for millions of years, since long before we appeared on the scene. There’s no doubt that the climate is growing warmer currently; indications of that change are all around us.

Though climate change isn’t new, the study of how human activity affects the earth’s climate is. The exploration of climate change encompasses many fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, geology, meteorology, oceanography, and even sociology.

At this Web site, you can explore scientific data relating to the atmosphere, the oceans, the areas covered by ice and snow, and the living organisms in all these domains. You’ll also get a sense of how scientists study natural phenomena—how researchers gather evidence, test theories, and come to conclusions.

Overview of Climate Change Research

Step 4: That bolded part is a link. When you click them, they take you to other webpages. in this case, it takes you to a brief overview (just 6 pages) explaining, in general, the scientific research done on climate change.

Step 5: http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/index.html
Read it.

Step 6: After each page you should write "what did I learn?" and summarize the information so you don't forget it a minute later.

Step 7: When you finish all of that, let me know and I'll do the 10 seconds of work and find more information for you/



You can lead a horse to water...

Apache
01-21-2011, 02:21 PM
the search was done for you but I understand some people need to be spoon fed

Step 2: I clicked the 3rd link on the google page

Step 3: http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/index.html



Step 4: That bolded part is a link. When you click them, they take you to other webpages. in this case, it takes you to a brief overview (just 6 pages) explaining, in general, the scientific research done on climate change.

Step 5: http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/index.html
Read it.

Step 6: After each page you should write "what did I learn?" and summarize the information so you don't forget it a minute later.

Step 7: When you finish all of that, let me know and I'll do the 10 seconds of work and find more information for you/



You can lead a horse to water...

but you can't make him think...
Though climate change isn’t new, the study of how human activity affects the earth’s climate is.

I rest my case. You guys have NOTHING to base your claims on historically, so you make shit up as you go...


You have NO historical basis on which to make these claims.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2011, 02:25 PM
I'm going to guess the closest to a science education you have is being forced to watch The Universe on the history channel because you couldn't find the remote when Nazi Ghost Hunters ended

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2011, 02:27 PM
Its called Peer Review ;)

NJCardFan
01-21-2011, 03:06 PM
the study of how human activity affects the earth’s climate is.
Carlin said it best when he said that only human arrogance could possibly conceive a notion that we are having any type of negative affect on the planet. And how come I've never heard anyone mention that the increasing world population is any type of cause. I mean, increasing the population from 4 to 7 billion in 37 years has to be a factor.

Molon Labe
01-21-2011, 03:09 PM
Its called Peer Review ;)

Here ya go.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

some people believe the peer review they wish to believe.

Apache
01-21-2011, 03:14 PM
Its called Peer Review ;)

Its called pinchin' a turd and see if it floats...

Its called a theory...


Its called a guess...

Its called a scam...

Its called arrogance...

Molon Labe
01-21-2011, 03:54 PM
Irreproducible Results in Thompson et al., "Abrupt Tropical Climate Change: Past and Present" (PNAS 2006) (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/t7271323353tt037/)

AmPat
01-21-2011, 08:28 PM
Irreproducible Results in Thompson et al., "Abrupt Tropical Climate Change: Past and Present" (PNAS 2006) (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/t7271323353tt037/)
Facts are to Liberals as Raid is to cock roaches.:cool:

Apocalypse
01-21-2011, 08:53 PM
increased heat energy in the atmosphere changes the air pressure and the force of winds. increased wind is an increase of energy, which in the winter can bring huge amounts of snow to areas that don't normally get that much.

increased heat energy has LOTS of effects on local weather, not just an increase on the temperature

So much increased temperature that NOAA's NOAA-16 satellite recorded;


for June and July 2010 for Lake Michigan showed crazy temperatures off the scale ranging in the low to mid hundreds - with some parts of the Wisconsin area apparently reaching 612 F.

NJCardFan
01-21-2011, 09:08 PM
Facts are to Liberals as Raid is to cock roaches.:cool:

You think liberals act that well to facts?

AmPat
01-21-2011, 11:00 PM
You think liberals act that well to facts?

I don't want to tempt him to commit a heinous crime. Sensitivity training is now "encouraged" at the VRWC Headquarters.:cool:

Apache
01-22-2011, 10:25 AM
I don't want to tempt him to commit a heinous crime. Sensitivity training is now "encouraged" at the VRWC Headquarters.:cool:

Yeah, well the men's room was out of TP, so you can guess where the memo went...

NJCardFan
01-22-2011, 03:14 PM
It's hot as hell here at 22 degrees. :rolleyes:

Zathras
01-22-2011, 07:12 PM
Hey I'm glad for global warming....supposed to be in the low 70's here in San Jose for the next week or so.

Apache
01-22-2011, 07:35 PM
Hey I'm glad for global warming....supposed to be in the low 70's here in San Jose for the next week or so.

STFU :mad:

Apocalypse
01-22-2011, 08:34 PM
Hey I'm glad for global warming....supposed to be in the low 70's here in San Jose for the next week or so.

Come to Iowa Buddy. You can enjoy our balmy 13 Deg. right now.

NJCardFan
01-22-2011, 08:46 PM
Come to Iowa Buddy. You can enjoy our balmy 13 Deg. right now.

18 degrees in Jersey right now.

Rockntractor
01-22-2011, 09:17 PM
We had a heat wave today after a week of not going above freezing we made 45, the goats and sheep had a party!

PoliCon
01-23-2011, 12:54 AM
12 degrees and falling. windchill has us in the negative numbers.

NJCardFan
01-23-2011, 02:11 AM
12 degrees and falling. windchill has us in the negative numbers.
Ditto here. 12 balmy degrees. And this is unusually cold for this part of the country. Using Wee Wee's logic, I guess we're headed for an ice age. Oh wait, I forgot. When it gets colder, it's global warming.:rolleyes:

Sonnabend
01-23-2011, 05:24 AM
India (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/india/index.html) has once again challenged the UN’s climate science body - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) --- through a new scientific paper. The Environment ministry sponsored paper says that human induced global warming is much less than what the R K Pachauri headed IPCC had said (http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/Ramesh-backed-paper-questions-another-IPCC-claim/Article1-652754.aspx). The cause is reduced impact of Galactic Cosmic Rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_cosmic_rays) (GCRs) on formulation of low clouds over earth in the last 150 years, says a paper by U R Rao, former chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation, released by Environment minister Jairam Ramesh.

Reminds me of the bullshit spouted recently, that the floods were a result of "global warming"..so, tell us, what caused the floods of 1893?

Of 1974?

Wasn't it the warmists who told us we wouldn't enough rain and that Perth would be a desert?

They were wrong.

Again.

PoliCon
01-23-2011, 10:00 AM
Ditto here. 12 balmy degrees. And this is unusually cold for this part of the country. Using Wee Wee's logic, I guess we're headed for an ice age. Oh wait, I forgot. When it gets colder, it's global warming.:rolleyes:

Remember 10 years ago when they constantly insisted that we would be losing winters all together?

badswing
01-23-2011, 10:12 AM
yet we have this.... http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/19/nasa-targets-children-with-climate-kids-website/..
from NASA. just to make sure the children follow their marching orders

PoliCon
01-23-2011, 10:28 AM
yet we have this.... http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/19/nasa-targets-children-with-climate-kids-website/..
from NASA. just to make sure the children follow their marching orders

I love how NASA continues to justify it's budget by being a chief proponent of climate change. :rolleyes:

badswing
01-23-2011, 10:47 AM
and dont forget their marching orders from dear leader to ....Bolden (NASA) created a firestorm after telling Al Jazeera last month that President Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things: inspire children to learn math and science, expand international relationships and "perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering

wilbur
01-23-2011, 12:41 PM
Here ya go.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

some people believe the peer review they wish to believe.

Lets see... picked the first paper listed in that article... Let's see what sourcewatch says about the journal:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment



Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]


Doesnt bode well for the rest of the list.

Apache
01-23-2011, 12:46 PM
Lets see... picked the first paper listed in that article... Let's see what sourcewatch says about the journal:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment



Doesnt bode well for the rest of the list.

So your saying that peer review is worthless. Nice to know ;)

wilbur
01-23-2011, 05:56 PM
So your saying that peer review is worthless. Nice to know ;)

Epic fail.

Apache
01-23-2011, 06:21 PM
Epic fail.

Not on this subject, and respectfully, you damn well know it...

wilbur
01-23-2011, 06:48 PM
Not on this subject, and respectfully, you damn well know it...

Damn well know you don't know what you're talking about, especially on this subject.

Apache
01-23-2011, 06:55 PM
Damn well know you don't know what you're talking about, especially on this subject.

So you're saying that there aren't two sets of "peer review" on this matter? AND that neither is going to give points to the other side?

wilbur
01-23-2011, 07:35 PM
So you're saying that there aren't two sets of "peer review" on this matter? AND that neither is going to give points to the other side?

Well, there are two sets of "peer review", in the same sense that there were two sets of "peer review" on the relationship between cancer and tobacco back in the day.

In other words, there was the peer review... then there were the agenda driven lobbiest organizations, who gave themselves scientific sounding names and published smoking friendly scientific sounding "research" who called themselves "peer reviewed". That's usually all you need to do to confuse or fool John Q Public into thinking you are a credible research body.

Rockntractor
01-23-2011, 07:36 PM
Damn well know you don't know what you're talking about, especially on this subject.

How could anyone know about a made up crises that does not exist, once again you are owned Wilbur!:rolleyes:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/public_education_gone_to_the_dogs.jpg

Sonnabend
01-23-2011, 08:06 PM
Well, there are two sets of "peer review", in the same sense that there were two sets of "peer review" on the relationship between cancer and tobacco back in the day.

In other words, there was the peer review... then there were the agenda driven lobbiest organizations, who gave themselves scientific sounding names and published smoking friendly scientific sounding "research" who called themselves "peer reviewed". That's usually all you need to do to confuse or fool John Q Public into thinking you are a credible research body.So just to clarify your position. By the above statement you are telling us that as far as you are concerned,. AGW is absolute and undeniable, and there is no room for doubt, no question, no argument.

Am I getting you right?

wilbur
01-23-2011, 08:12 PM
So just to clarify your position. By the above statement you asre telling us that AGW is absolute and undeniable, and there is no room for doubt, no question, no argument.

Am I getting you right?

Err.....

I don't even know how to respond to this, this is just so bizarre and off-the-wall. What the hell are you talking about?

Rockntractor
01-23-2011, 08:13 PM
Err.....

I don't even know how to respond to this, this is just so bizarre and off-the-wall. What the hell are you talking about?

It is worded quite clearly, have you been drinking?

wilbur
01-23-2011, 08:20 PM
It is worded quite clearly, have you been drinking?

Have you? Because his post had nothing to do with the words in my post, at all.

Rockntractor
01-23-2011, 08:22 PM
Have you? Because his post had nothing to do with the words in my post, at all.

Your words never have anything to do with any sort of rational thought, what else is new?:confused:

wilbur
01-23-2011, 08:23 PM
Your words never have anything to do with any sort of rational thought, what else is new?:confused:

Think you might be the first (even among conservatives here) to falsely equate anything Sonna says, with rational thought.

Rockntractor
01-23-2011, 08:30 PM
Think you might be the first (even among conservatives here) to falsely equate anything Sonna says, with rational thought.

Sonna is very rational and he doesn't mince words, I never leave wondering what did he really mean.
You and others could learn something from him.

wilbur
01-23-2011, 08:35 PM
Sonna is very rational and he doesn't mince words, I never leave wondering what did he really mean.
You and others could learn something from him.

Hahhahahhahaha!! Hhahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahh ahahhahaha!!!!! Ha!

That is all.

Sonnabend
01-23-2011, 08:36 PM
I will make it simple, Wilbur. Your post above referred to cancer and tobacco. The proof that smoking is carcinogenic is a matter of record, so I now ask you: is it your position that the same is now true of AGW....that it is absolute and undeniable. Yes or no?

wilbur
01-23-2011, 08:52 PM
I will make it simple, Wilbur. Your post above referred to cancer and tobacco. The proof that smoking is carcinogenic is a matter of record, so I now ask you: is it your position that the same is now true of AGW....that it is absolute and undeniable. Yes or no?

The clear and undeniable point of my analogy was that there is legitimate and credible peer-review research, and that there is agenda-driven manufactured pseudo "research" (which is proponents usually market as peer-reviewed or scientifically rigorous) in the climate debate, just as there was in the cancer/tobacco debates years ago.

And the article I looked into appears to be the latter. I'd be willing to bet that if we went through the list, we'd find most of the alleged 850 "peer-reviewed" papers to be in that same category.

Any other points you may be trying to extract out of my post, would only be, as you call them, one of those "wild-assed" assumptions and completely unjustified.

Sonnabend
01-23-2011, 09:04 PM
Wilbur has already admittd he has no scientific qualifications folks, so bear that in mind when he tells you he knows more..... He doesnt. All he has is his opinion.

Rockntractor
01-23-2011, 09:06 PM
Wilbur has already admittd he has no scientific qualifications folks, so bear that in mind when he tells you he knows more..... He doesnt. All he has is his opinion.

Sorry Sonna, I really am embarrassed at what our schools are turning out!

wilbur
01-23-2011, 09:33 PM
Wilbur has already admittd he has no scientific qualifications folks, so bear that in mind when he tells you he knows more..... He doesnt. All he has is his opinion.

Nowhere in this thread did I utter the words, "I know more".... though I do have a science degree, its unrelated to climatology.

However, I will say its a pathetically transparent move to play the "you don't have any formal training" card anytime you paint yourself into a corner on this topic. What a convenient little get-out-jail-free card you have provided for yourself... unfortunately, as I said, its transparent. Its an emergency "save face" maneuver, and everybody knows it.

Most people here have no formal training on any of the issues they debate (and often do so quite dogmatically), so if we really wanted to nuke just about any discussion here we could just start spouting off about formal training. Not very productive.

On global warming, I've done my homework. Having done my homework, its quite clear to me when others haven't, as these discussions move along, but I'm always willing to revise my thinking if my positions are challenged by an expert.

Rockntractor
01-23-2011, 09:37 PM
I do have a science degree, its unrelated to climatology.



Related to what and from what school?

Sonnabend
01-23-2011, 09:44 PM
So the crux of your stance equates to "I think so based on what I have read" ....and not on anything more than your opinion....and a smug certainty you are right.

Well you know what is said about opinions....in fact, the truth is..you don't know.

wilbur
01-23-2011, 10:34 PM
So the crux of your stance equates to "I think so based on what I have read" ....and not on anything more than your opinion....and a smug certainty you are right.

Well you know what is said about opinions....in fact, the truth is..you don't know.

You can be as determined as you like to hide behind this excuse - but its as I already said - its transparent.

Rockntractor
01-23-2011, 10:45 PM
though I do have a science degree, its unrelated to climatology.


Proof or it didn't happen!

wilbur
01-23-2011, 10:56 PM
Proof or it didn't happen!

There is no proof on the internet. You'll just have to trust me.

PoliCon
01-23-2011, 11:56 PM
There is no proof on the internet. You'll just have to trust me.

post a copy of your diploma. That would be proof.

PoliCon
01-23-2011, 11:58 PM
So your saying that peer review is worthless. Nice to know ;)

The AGW alarmists don't like it because they do not tow the line on AGW.

Sonnabend
01-24-2011, 04:08 AM
Trust you??

Righhhttt........

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 05:35 AM
Think you might be the first (even among conservatives here) to falsely equate anything Sonna says, with rational thought.

As opposed to a Lib like you rubliw who did such a find job of circular logic on another site that you ended up arguing against your own initial statements?

Sonna may get agitated at idiots like you sometimes...but at least he can keep the same train of thought and make credible arguments for more than two minutes without contradicting himself.

Sonnabend
01-24-2011, 06:28 AM
Sonna may get agitated at idiots like you sometimes...but at least he can keep the same train of thought and make credible arguments for more than two minutes without contradicting himse

I have a very low tolerance for bullshit artists.


You can be as determined as you like to hide behind this excuse - but its as I already said - its transparent.

You are not a climate scientist. You have admitted that, so if you are "speaking with authority" you have none. IF you had a climate degree, or one in meteorology or other sciences, I would actually listen ,as you would then know what you are on about.

As it is, you have admitted that you do not in fact know, and that what you "believe" is based on what you have read and what you think you know. That's opinion, not credible fact.

The fact is that many scientists doubt and question AGW, and that you ignore them or dismiss them as "uninformed" is your way of closing your eyes to contrary opinions...none of whom you can legitimately question as you do not have the scientific basis on which to doubt what they say.

The beginning of wisdom are the words I dont know.

I am not a "denier", I am a healthy sceptic who questions and doubts, based on the fact that those who espouse this AGW have lied again and again, have falsified and manufactured data, who have covered up and deleted information rather than have it checked by independent sources.


“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-made_global_warming) are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.


“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_reviewed) papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.


“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

Sounds like I am not the only one. Can you match their expertise?

How do you know you are right and they are wrong?

Bottom line: you don't know.

It is your opinion, your belief...not cold hard fact.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-24-2011, 06:31 AM
increased heat energy in the atmosphere changes the air pressure and the force of winds. increased wind is an increase of energy, which in the winter can bring huge amounts of snow to areas that don't normally get that much.

increased heat energy has LOTS of effects on local weather, not just an increase on the temperature


Except for that to happen there has to be more heat energy.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 06:34 AM
the entire thought process is "global warming, hmm, sounds like the whole globe gets warmer!"

then scoffing at scientists who spend their entire lives researching it "ummm well it snowed yesterday those scientists are stoopid!"

The problem is kid...and you were too young to remember this...is that these same "the sky is falling" scientists that are telling us the ice caps are gonna melt and flood the world because of global warming...are the same "experts" that in the 70's predicted we'd be in the next Ice Age by now.

This group of lunatics just move the goal posts when reality doesn't fit their theory.

ANd if they can't do that...they just make up stuff out of whole cloth and gin up numbers till they fit their new "theory".

wilbur
01-24-2011, 10:27 AM
As opposed to a Lib like you rubliw who did such a find job of circular logic on another site that you ended up arguing against your own initial statements?


Oh geez... this is not really true, of course - but not that you could even tell if it was, Mr. Tx - "homosexuality disproves evolution" - RadioGuy...



Sonna may get agitated at idiots like you sometimes...but at least he can keep the same train of thought and make credible arguments for more than two minutes without contradicting himself.

Hahahaha. I love it. Sonnabend agitated... sometimes?! Keep the same train of thought? Yea, he's only got the one, though I wouldnt exactly call it thought.

wilbur
01-24-2011, 10:31 AM
The problem is kid...and you were too young to remember this...is that these same "the sky is falling" scientists that are telling us the ice caps are gonna melt and flood the world because of global warming...are the same "experts" that in the 70's predicted we'd be in the next Ice Age by now.

This group of lunatics just move the goal posts when reality doesn't fit their theory.

ANd if they can't do that...they just make up stuff out of whole cloth and gin up numbers till they fit their new "theory".

All the crazed predictions of doom and gloom in the 70's you speak of, were little more than manufactured media controversies.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 11:02 AM
All the crazed predictions of doom and gloom in the 70's you speak of, were little more than manufactured media controversies.

It's fitting that your name on here is also the name of a pig from children literature. Cause you're shoveling a fairytale of pure pig manure.

Some of the same scientists making claims of global freezing then were the same ones making claims of global warming now.

It's well documented. Maybe if you'd pull your head out of your @ss rubliw you'd learn something.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 11:11 AM
Oh geez... this is not really true, of course - but not that you could even tell if it was, Mr. Tx - "homosexuality disproves evolution" - RadioGuy...


I believe I linked to several articles proving my point.

You did nothing but page after page of made up idiocy from your head.

To the point where you ended up contradicting things you had said previously in the thread.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 11:33 AM
Paul Ehrlich wrote the best-selling book The Population Bomb in the 70's

Another Ice Age - Time magazine 1975

From the Article:


“Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


"If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist


There are legions more quotes from the same idiots claiming there is just as much consensus now as there was back then.

Rockntractor
01-24-2011, 11:39 AM
Don't forget the hole in the ozone and the green house effect!

NJCardFan
01-24-2011, 11:45 AM
16 degrees in global warmed NJ.

wilbur
01-24-2011, 12:30 PM
Paul Ehrlich wrote the best-selling book The Population Bomb in the 70's

Another Ice Age - Time magazine 1975

From the Article:



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


"If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist


There are legions more quotes from the same idiots claiming there is just as much consensus now as there was back then.

Assembling a list of anecdotal, cherry-picked quotes does not impress me - we can literally carve out any reality we want to from such a process. Anecdotes don't mean shit.

Give me some numbers with statistical rigor, and then we'll talk.

And guess what? I already have some numbers with some statistical rigor...

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm



But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."


And for the actual study: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 12:44 PM
Assembling a list of anecdotal, cherry-picked quotes does not impress me - we can literally carve out any reality we want to from such a process. Anecdotes don't mean shit.

I could give a damn less about impressing you Champ.

I'm more interested in debunking your retarded leftist inaccurate drivel.


And guess what? I already have some numbers with some statistical rigor...

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm



And for the actual study: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

LOL! More bullshit from the people that have been disproven anyway? Not doing much to counter the facts their rubliw.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 12:52 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg


This graph shows the average of 18 non-tree ring proxies of temperature from 12 locations around the Northern Hemisphere, published by Craig Loehle in 2007, and later revised in 2008. It clearly shows that natural climate variability happens, and these proxies coincide with known events in human history.

Loehle also published in 2008 a paper that described why tree rings can not be trusted as a proxy for past temperature variations. Tree ring data have what is called a “divergence problem” in the late 20th Century where the tree ring data data suggests cooling, when in fact there has been warming. This, by itself, should cast serious doubt on whether tree ring reconstructions (such as Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” curve) can be used to estimate past global temperature variability.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_102.gif


Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets (see here and here)that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years. As of early 2011, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite and providing data since late 2002.

The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer record of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.



Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.

But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

www.drroyspencer.com

wilbur
01-24-2011, 12:54 PM
I could give a damn less about impressing you Champ.

I'm more interested in debunking your retarded leftist inaccurate drivel.


Anecdotes DEFINITELY can't do that either, "Champ". Try again.



LOL! More bullshit from the people that have been disproven anyway? Not doing much to counter the facts their rubliw.

The "people that have been dis-proven"? How do you disprove a person? Show that they never existed?

Anyhow... did you hear that these people have been "disproven" by the same people who told you that scientists were all panicking about an ice age in the 70s? I think I might see the problem.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 12:56 PM
Anecdotes DEFINITELY can't do that either, "Champ". Try again.



The "people that have been dis-proven"? How do you disprove a person? Show that they never existed?

Anyhow... did you hear that these people have been "disproven" by the same people who told you that scientists were all panicking about an ice age in the 70s? I think I might see the problem.

The problem is your Druidical belief in whatever the globull warming alarmists tell you.

And while you were pounding away with one hand on the reply to this...I gave you more than enough facts and figures to chew on.

Enjoy rubilw.

wilbur
01-24-2011, 01:11 PM
The problem is your Druidical belief in whatever the globull warming alarmists tell you.

And while you were pounding away with one hand on the reply to this...I gave you more than enough facts and figures to chew on.

Enjoy rubilw.

Here, you want some information to chew on? We both know you don't, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/12/50-doomiest-graphs-of-2010.html

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 01:12 PM
Here, you want some information to chew on? We both know you don't, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/12/50-doomiest-graphs-of-2010.html

How about responding to the facts I posted for you to examine?

Lets deal with that first. Instead of trying to dodge reality.

wilbur
01-24-2011, 01:18 PM
How about responding to the facts I posted for you to examine?

Lets deal with that first. Instead of trying to dodge reality.

Number one reason is it will take time to read and think about, and to craft a proper response.

Number two, I doubt very much that the same dip-shit that claims evolution is disproved by homosexuality actually read and understood any of that material himself. And therefore that same person wouldn't actually understand any criticism that I made. So there's that.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 01:22 PM
Number one reason is it will take time to read and think about, and to craft a proper response.

Translated...I gotta think about how to lie my way out of what he posted.

Good luck Champ.


Number two, I doubt very much that the same dip-shit that claims evolution is disproved by homosexuality actually read and understood any of that material himself. And therefore that same person wouldn't actually understand any criticism that I made. So there's that.

Quit making excuses for being wrong again courtesy of yours truly.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 01:24 PM
$10 says that rubilw won't address the facts stated in what I posted and just continues his line of I'm smarter than you arrogant BS.

Any takers?

Apache
01-24-2011, 03:41 PM
On global warming, I've done my homework. Having done my homework, its quite clear to me when others haven't, as these discussions move along, but I'm always willing to revise my thinking if my positions are challenged by an expert.

Well if you did you're the only one. there is no historcal records on the climate. The study of the climate is too damn new to predict anything, much less man's impact. I'm willing to give you the same chance I gave WEE. Show me climate research records going back at least 500 years. Only then will I believe you've "done your homework".

Sonnabend
01-24-2011, 06:06 PM
More scientists that disagree with AGW (http://www.dailytech.com/Japanese+Report+Disputes+Human+Cause+for+Global+Wa rming/article13934.htm)


All but one of the scientists disagreed that global warming is the result of human activity.Contributing to the report were Syunichi Akasofu, professor emeritus at the University of Alaska, and former director of the Fairbanks Geophysical Institute and the International Arctic Research Center, Shigenori Maruyama, professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Kiminori Itoh, professor of Physical Chemistry at Yokohama National University, Seita Emori, head of the National Institute for Environmental Sciences, and Kanya Kusano, director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC).


# George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."


# Ian Clark,Pubs hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

Again wilbur, would you care to put your non existent qualifications next to theirs? Or a reall of them, "crackpots" and in the "pay of big oil" I can keep posting these ad infinitum if you like...but you wont listen.

You never do.

wilbur
01-24-2011, 06:23 PM
More scientists that disagree with AGW (http://www.dailytech.com/Japanese+Report+Disputes+Human+Cause+for+Global+Wa rming/article13934.htm)

Again wilbur, would you care to put your non existent qualifications next to theirs? Or a reall of them, "crackpots" and in the "pay of big oil" I can keep posting these ad infinitum if you like...but you wont listen.

You never do.

Yes, we are all aware you can find a few scientists that either doubt or fully disbelieve AGW. So what? (and I don't have to hold up MY credentials to theirs... I can hold up against them the credentials of the vast number of climatologists who endorse the theory, who outnumber that little handful of dissenters, by a vast vast margin).

The fact that you think these anecdotes are in any way meaningful or indicative of a trend is the problem here.

3rd-try
01-24-2011, 09:17 PM
...and in the mean time Albert Gore has purchased a multi-million dollar mansion with a scenic view of the Pacific. Now, what were his "estimates" of rising sea levels again?

Don't attempt to pass off old preacher Al either. He is the best at dropping names of "brilliant" scientists and orgs that have provided the "truth".

Which side of this debate has been caught red handed cooking the numbers?

As always, follow the money. The many different avenues of grant money for such a "bring the USA down a notch" is mind boggling.

The enviros have done so much good. Like DDT and preventing the construction of coal-fired power plants in remote regions of Africa. You should be proud. IDIOT!

Sonnabend
01-24-2011, 11:03 PM
Yes, we are all aware you can find a few scientists that either doubt or fully disbelieve AGW. So what? (and I don't have to hold up MY credentials to theirs

What credentials? You dont have any and you aren't a climate scientist. You stated that earlier.


... I can hold up against them the credentials of the vast number of climatologists who endorse the theory, who outnumber that little handful of dissenters, by a vast vast margin).

No you can't. You don't have their qualifications.


The fact that you think these anecdotes are in any way meaningful or indicative of a trend is the problem here.

Oh I just chose one or two...there are a LOT more.

txradioguy
01-25-2011, 12:07 AM
Yes, we are all aware you can find a few scientists that either doubt or fully disbelieve AGW. So what? (and I don't have to hold up MY credentials to theirs... I can hold up against them the credentials of the vast number of climatologists who endorse the theory, who outnumber that little handful of dissenters, by a vast vast margin).

Sooo....ho about the fact that the scientists that are a part of the AGW cult have been declaring a "consensus" on the matter and that it's fact that AGW is real.

Kinda blows their their statement out of the water.


The fact that you think these anecdotes are in any way meaningful or indicative of a trend is the problem here.

For those playing along at home...in rubliw's pointy little head....repudiation of AGW with factual evidence by scientists and scholars = "anecdotes".

txradioguy
01-25-2011, 01:14 PM
Just bumping this for rubliw.

txradioguy
01-26-2011, 01:37 PM
Oh wilbur...

Rockntractor
01-26-2011, 01:55 PM
Oh wilbur...

Wilbur is in getting his head re-inflated, his ego caused it to pop last night.:(

txradioguy
01-26-2011, 02:11 PM
Wilbur is in getting his head re-inflated, his ego caused it to pop last night.:(

I know. I just want to remind him that there are some pesky facts concerning the myth of Global Warming that I posted that he has ignored since oh about 30 seconds after I put them up.

In typical Lib fashion he's trying to now avoid the topic since I called his bluff.

Odysseus
01-26-2011, 03:01 PM
All the crazed predictions of doom and gloom in the 70's you speak of, were little more than manufactured media controversies.
Whereas the crazed predictions of doom and gloom today are far more lucrative manufactured media controversies.

There is no proof on the internet. You'll just have to trust me.
ROFLOL!!!!!

The clear and undeniable point of my analogy was that there is legitimate and credible peer-review research, and that there is agenda-driven manufactured pseudo "research" (which is proponents usually market as peer-reviewed or scientifically rigorous) in the climate debate, just as there was in the cancer/tobacco debates years ago.

And the article I looked into appears to be the latter. I'd be willing to bet that if we went through the list, we'd find most of the alleged 850 "peer-reviewed" papers to be in that same category.

Any other points you may be trying to extract out of my post, would only be, as you call them, one of those "wild-assed" assumptions and completely unjustified.

Lysenko's work was "peer-reviewed" as well. His peers were animated by a desire to avoid one-way trips to the gulags for themselves and their families. Today's peer reviewers are motivated by money and power. At least Lysenko's peers were forced to choose between two evils. Today's peers are choosing between truth and corruption, and they are falling in on corruption.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-27-2011, 06:40 AM
All the crazed predictions of doom and gloom in the 70's you speak of, were little more than manufactured media controversies.


Who listened to the very same people who were preaching doom and gloom about THAT crisis - JUST LIKE TODAY.

NJCardFan
01-27-2011, 11:17 AM
All the crazed predictions of doom and gloom in the 70's you speak of, were little more than manufactured media controversies.

The irony of this statement makes one's head spin. In the mean time, I'm surrounded by 6" of global warming that fell last night. Global warming has been so profound that more snow has fallen in this area between 12/19/09 and today than the previous 15 years combined.

Odysseus
01-27-2011, 11:26 AM
The irony of this statement makes one's head spin. In the mean time, I'm surrounded by 6" of global warming that fell last night. Global warming has been so profound that more snow has fallen in this area between 12/19/09 and today than the previous 15 years combined.

See, that's just our simplistic outlook at work. If it doesn't snow, it's global warming. If it snows more, it's global warming. If the sky suddenly turns pink and soap bubbles pop out of volcanos, it's global warming. Global warming is the cause of every major catastrophe since man began buring stuff to keep warm. Global warming sank the Titanic (Icebergs are caused when the icecaps melt and large chunks float away), killed JFK (he was traveling in an open convertable), detonated the Hindenburg (it got hot up there) and got Roseanne Barr into spandex. Oh, the humanity!!!

AmPat
01-27-2011, 04:27 PM
Anecdotes DEFINITELY can't do that either, "Champ". Try again.



The "people that have been dis-proven"? How do you disprove a person? Show that they never existed?

Anyhow... did you hear that these people have been "disproven" by the same people who told you that scientists were all panicking about an ice age in the 70s? I think I might see the problem.

How about "disgraced" Champ? I believe that was the more accurate word he was looking for.:cool:

AmPat
01-27-2011, 04:31 PM
The irony of this statement makes one's head spin. In the mean time, I'm surrounded by 6" of global warming that fell last night. Global warming has been so profound that more snow has fallen in this area between 12/19/09 and today than the previous 15 years combined.

I'm not sure how they will explain Colorado. We have huge snowfall in the mountains and it will be nearly mid 60's in the Springs tomorrow. Can they possibly explian this dichotomy with Global Warming?:eek::cool: