Print Page | Close Window

Global Warming?

Printed From: Main Street Monroe
Category: Voice Forums
Forum Name: Political Voice
Forum Description: Regional and national political opinions
URL: https://voice.mainstreetmonroe.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1172
Printed Date: Jun 17 2019 at 11:56am


Topic: Global Warming?
Posted By: Matt_Steele
Subject: Global Warming?
Date Posted: Jul 21 2013 at 9:34pm
Washington DC is certainly feeling it: 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/07/21/d-c-s-sets-record-for-longest-streak-above-80-degrees/" rel="nofollow - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/07/21/d-c-s-sets-record-for-longest-streak-above-80-degrees/


List of D.C. summer heat milestones since 2010:

two of the top four hottest Junes
hottest two June days
hottest three Julys
hottest three summers
earliest 100-degree reading in a day
3 longest stretches of temperatures above 80 degrees
longest uninterrupted stretch above 100
most 100-degree days in a month (7)
tie for most consecutive days at 100 (4)
tie for most 90+ days in a year (67)
tie for most 95+ days in a year (28)
At least 50 90+ days for three straight years, first time on record
hottest days so early and late in the season






-------------



Replies:
Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Jul 21 2013 at 10:20pm

German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is the coldest in 208 years – and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, who says it is proof that we are heading for a “Mini Ice Age.”

http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/start-2013-coldest-208-years/

Global warming is the religion for idiots! 


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jul 22 2013 at 9:53am
Why should I listen to one guy when there is so much evidence contradicting him?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-heat-drought-and-floods-in-2013" rel="nofollow - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-heat-drought-and-floods-in-2013

http://www.livescience.com/37601-may-2013-third-warmest.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.livescience.com/37601-may-2013-third-warmest.html

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2013/04/27/march-2013-is-337th-consecutive-month-above-20th-century-average/" rel="nofollow - http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2013/04/27/march-2013-is-337th-consecutive-month-above-20th-century-average/

From this article:  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-releases-may-2013-global-climate-report" rel="nofollow - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-releases-may-2013-global-climate-report

Many areas of the world experienced higher-than-average monthly temperatures, including most of northern Siberia, western Russia, northern and eastern Europe, and central Australia. Meanwhile, western Siberia, northeastern Kazakhstan, western Europe, southwestern Greenland, parts of the central and southeastern United States, and Alaska were notably below average.







-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jul 22 2013 at 10:42am
Quick, beef up that steady stream of global warming grant money. Tighten the screws on the state controlled media! Whatever you do, don't let politics and truth ever come into focus. Play the race card, for crying out loud! Just shut up, the debate is over!Wink
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15905-study-too-little-carbon-dioxide-will-destroy-earth" rel="nofollow -
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15905-study-too-little-carbon-dioxide-will-destroy-earth
Study: Too Little Carbon Dioxide Will Destroy Earth
 
Do you want to save the planet? Fire up the SUV this holiday weekend and go for a pleasure ride; burn some more coal in your barbecue grill; crank up the house’s AC; and, generally, aspire to a Paul Bunyan-size carbon footprint. Because according to astrobiologist Jack O’Malley-James speaking at the National Astronomy meeting at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, life on Earth will suffer a carbon-dioxide-related extinction. But contrary to popular-culture belief, the problem will be too little of the naturally occurring gas.

The more you really examine the scientific truth about carbon dioxide rather than the politically-charged "hate speech" against Mother Nature being spewed by people like Al Gore, the more you realize CO2 is a crucial nutrient for the Earth's environment and ecosystem. In fact, the vast majority of all the CO2 released into the atmosphere is produced by Mother Nature via animals in the ocean.

Note here that carbon dioxide is to plants what oxygen is to man. People have reduced stamina and more trouble breathing at higher altitudes because there’s less oxygen in the air; likewise, decreased CO2 inhibits plant photosynthesis, which is why botanists pump the gas into their greenhouses. This is also one reason the age of the dinosaurs was marked by lush foliage blanketing the Earth: Carbon dioxide levels were 5 to 10 times those of today.

 

But while CO2’s affect on flora is well established, its influence on temperature is a different matter. In fact, some scientists believe increased carbon dioxide may actually cool the atmosphere. Writes http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html" rel="nofollow - A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

Whatever the effect of CO2 on climate, many experts also point out that the computer forecasting models predicting a steadily warming planet are belied by actual temperature records. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2Y64yqfPA" rel="nofollow - The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the "plateau" or "pause" in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

So if the critics of Anthropogenic Global Warming theory are correct, the only man-made aspect of the matter is the data itself. Nonetheless, while it’s entirely possible the climate won’t be heating up anytime soon, the rhetoric surrounding it most surely will.



-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jul 22 2013 at 11:52am
I don't know anyone who doesn't believe the first paragraph about CO2. Of course it's critical to the environment and of course it's produced naturally. 

Producing it unnaturally is what the problem is. Look at why Venus is so hot, it's not just because it's closer to the Sun (Venus is actually much hotter than Mercury). Its atmosphere is almost all CO2. Also, what happened when the Earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2? It was pretty hot out there. When the dinosaurs were around, with higher CO2 levels, it was also much warmer.





-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Jul 22 2013 at 5:13pm


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jul 23 2013 at 12:59pm
All I'll say about that chart is that you should consider the source (not to mention some of the inaccuracies).

Cliff Harris likes to look at the Bible for clues about what the weather will be in the future. I think in the case of weather prediction, I'll go with actual scientists. 

Also, why isn't the Y axis labeled on here? And where is this data coming from? 

And why does this chart differ so much from this one:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png



A reminder: There are VERY FEW national or international scientific organizations that doubt global warming. Yet even those who are skeptical, many actually believe global warming is happening.  http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html


I understand differing on how bad it might be or how to combat it (if at all), but I really really do not understand the reasoning and thinking behind believing that the Earth is not warming. The evidence is just plain overwhelming. At this point, it has to be some type of cognitive dissonance, much like when people refused to believe that there weren't WMDs or that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. 


-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jul 23 2013 at 2:41pm
[QUOTE



A reminder: There are VERY FEW national or international scientific organizations that doubt global warming. Yet even those who are skeptical, many actually believe global warming is happening.  
[/QUOTE] This couldn't be farther from the truth, but it is the standard party line of Obama. Last tally I saw it was about 50-50, but with billions going out, they may have bought off more by now.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html" rel="nofollow - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html
 
This, like every other major policy coming from this administration, has absolutely nothing to do with warming, and everything to do with control.
 
The biggest joke that will go under the radar (and be hailed as credible by the state controlled media) is Obama's recent rant that he is going to help the economy, and break through all that evil republican resistant of not wanting anyone but the rich to do well! He is and has been from the beginning, the biggest obstacle to progress. Everything he does goes against any form of common sense, but when reported and spun with the proper technique to the low informations, sounds brilliant, and the newly coined populations of grasshoppers, really could care less, as long as the gravy train rolls on!
 
The end all to this, is the substantial quantities of people whom naively believe, even if man made global warming were real, that any action we take would have any effect except to assure we become a footnote in history and a lesson for future generations of what not to do. To his credit, with a little help from his media friends, he could be the best politician in the history of this country. In the same breath, He is the worst thing that could have ever been thrust upon our land. Hands down!


-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jul 23 2013 at 4:32pm
Hey I like that editorial that you linked to! I think his analysis and conclusions are spot on.

Anyway, I'm not sure when the last tally you saw but let's run through the orgs and when they were spoke out in belief of global warming.

All of this data was taken from:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Also, spoiler alert, most of these organizations are not US (so not getting any of US $$$) and most of them supported it before Obama was even elected for the first term. 

Polish Academy of Science - 2007
American Association for the Advancement of Science (world's largest) - 2006
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies - 2008
United States National Research Council - 2001
Royal Society of New Zealand - 2001 and 2008
Royal Society of United Kingdom - 2001 and 2010
African Academy of Sciences - 2007
European Academy of Sciences and Arts - 2007
European Science Foundation - 2007
InterAcademy Council - 2007
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences - 2007
American Chemical Society - 2005
American Institute of Physics - 2003
American Physical Society - 2007
Australian Institute of Physics - 2005
European Physical Society - 2007
American Geophysical Union - 2003 and 2007
American Society of Agronomy - 2011
Crop Science Society of America - 2011
Soil Science Society of America - 2011
European Federation of Geologists - 2008
European Geosciences Union - 2005 and 2008
Geological Society of America - 2006
Geological Society of London - 2010
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics - 2007
National Association of Geoscience Teachers - 2009
American Meteorological Society - 2012
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society - 2012
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences - 2005
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society - 2009
Royal Meteorological Society - 2007
World Meteorological Organization - 2006
American Quarternary Association - (not listed)
International Union for Quarternary Research - (not listed, quarternary sites don't like to list dates I guess)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians - (not listed)
American Institute of Biological Sciences - 2009
American Society for Microbiology - 2006
Australian Coral Reef Society - 2006
Institute of Biology - (not listed)
Society of American Foresters - 2008
The Wildlife Society - 2011
American Academy of Pediatrics - 2007
American College of Preventative Medicine - 2006
American Medical Association - 2008
American Public Health Association - 2007
Australian Medical Association - 2004 and 2008
World Federation of Public Health Associations - 2001
WHO - 2008
American Astronomical Society - 2004
American Statistical Association - 2007
Engineers Australia - 2007
International Association for Great Lakes Research - 2009
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand - 2001
American Institute of Professional Geologists - 2009 and 2010 (though they are taking a position to not talk about it, not accepting any articles for their journal on the subject of climate change, whether pro or con)


Oh and these 34 National Academies of Science all in 2001:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_academies" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_academies
(including these countries: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Cambodia, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Scotland, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, UK, USA and Vatican City.)



Here are the organizations that have not committed to any side:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists
American Association of Climatologists
American Geological Institute
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences


Here are the organizations that do not believe global warming is happening:


.....



p.s. surveys of scientific research shows about 97% supporting the belief of global warming.


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jul 23 2013 at 4:35pm
To further illustrate the disconnect:




-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jul 23 2013 at 5:00pm
I'm going with Bob Preston on this one.

he clearly knows something everyone else doens't

SMH


-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jul 23 2013 at 6:27pm
If you read the entire article and do the math, it comes to about 50% just as I said. The Euro's are all backing out of the deal, because 1. They have no money ( sound familiar) and 2. The are freezing to death throwing good money after bad. With all the problems we have, this President lives on, and for distractions that are killing us and amount to much adieu about nothing.
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/" rel="nofollow - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full" rel="nofollow - - here and http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/" rel="nofollow -



Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jul 24 2013 at 11:20am
What part of that Wall Street Journal article did I not read? Was it this part:


When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.




Anyway, that's an interesting Op-Ed, yet when you actually read it and read the study that he linked to, it tells a slightly different story than the headline.

Only 24% of the scientific research surveyed doesn't believe in global warming. 76% do! Just with varying levels of the danger and the cause. 

I think some of this is semantics. Saying you believe in global warming doesn't mean that you believe in catastrophic changes. 

(Here's the main journal article if you'd like to read:  http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full" rel="nofollow - http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full )


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jul 24 2013 at 11:22am
Also, what are the Euros pulling out of? The Kyoto Protocol? 

-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jul 24 2013 at 12:37pm
The fact that you believe or don't believe is as irrelevant as whether you believe it is natural or man made. Both are irrelevant in the big picture. When coupled with the fact that one party and ideology believes by profiting and killing the economy will make any difference, (the most ardent supporters admit to this) you can change the weather by taking on all the hardships and economic devastation, while the other half of the world laughs at your stupidity and goes full throttle!
 
Nothing Obama does has anything to do with doing good, or doing the right thing. It is calculated about building a permanent coalition, permanently devoted to perpetual Democratic allegiance. It is about control and dependence and he is able to accomplish this only with the FULL cooperation of 90% + of the mainstream (state controlled) media. It will take decades to recover from the economic impact alone, even if we have a great awakening and change course promptly. This, however is most unlikely, as he has created too many grasshoppers, for the ants to overtake. In the end, it will take something much more radical, if at all, we are ever to get back on track.
 
Europe’s Climate Change Fail
http://theenergycollective.com/breakthroughinstitut/172466/europe-climate-change-fail" rel="nofollow - http://theenergycollective.com/breakthroughinstitut/172466/europe-climate-change-fail
 
EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/eu-debate-over-climate-change-policy-could-dampen-renewable-energy-growth" rel="nofollow - http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/eu-debate-over-climate-change-policy-could-dampen-renewable-energy-growth
 
Climate Change: Russia Is Steamed About U.N.'s Kyoto Carbon Credit COP-Out
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/23/climate-change-russia-is-steamed-about-u-ns-kyoto-carbon-credit-cop-out/" rel="nofollow - http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/23/climate-change-russia-is-steamed-about-u-ns-kyoto-carbon-credit-cop-out/

Carbon credit cap-and-trade marketing is but one U.N. climate alarm-based profiteering scheme aimed at global wealth redistribution. Another important agenda item for the UNFCCC’s  2015 Paris treaty to address is a planned “loss and damage” mechanism to seek compensation from “Tier 1” developed nations by a lawyered-up group of small island governments, the  Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS),  premised upon global warming hazards caused by industrialization. AOSIS leaders, including Tuvalu, Kirabati, St. Lucia, and the Maldives, claim that man-made global warming is causing super-hurricanes and rising sea levels.

And who is most to blame? Coincidentally, of course, those legions of lawyers have identified culprits with the deepest pockets…the U.S., Western Europe and Japan. Although China is now the world’s largest CO2 emitter, they got a pass. Still to be determined, is the problem of how such penalties should be assessed. For example, if a Category 4 hurricane hits an island, how can anyone know which portion of that hurricane was caused by each nation?  Also, how much of it was caused by those coal plants and SUVs, versus at Mother Nature’s sole discretion?

The idea of penalizing the West for trumped-up past and future climate crimes is certainly not new. Prior to COP-15 (2009-Copenhagen), several Latin American nations, the Philippines and the African Union claimed that Western countries owed developing countries trillions of dollars.

U.S. and European delegation representatives attending the Copenhagen Climate Conference initially agreed to provide their “fair share”, pledging $10 billion in compensation per year from 2010 to 2012, The offer was rejected as an insult, discussions were temporarily interrupted as representatives of several undeveloped countries walked out of the meetings, and angry riots broke out in the streets over the injustice of such paltry penance.

Then-Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told the audience where to lay the blame for the world’s social, economic and climate problems:

  •  “If the climate was a bank, [the West] would already have saved it”.
  • “The destructive model of capitalism is eradicating life”.
  •  “Our revolution seeks to help all people…Socialism, is the other ghost that is   probably       wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet; capitalism is the road to hell…Let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us”.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then came to the rescue, offering to up the ante with a $100 billion annual contribution from the United States and our more prosperous friends to the “poorest and most vulnerable [nations] among us” by 2020. She said that the money would come from “a variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance”. Where it would actually come from no one knew, including Hillary and her boss. (Any guesses?)

Time to End the Climate of Insanity

It’s way past time to recognize that UNFCCC’s cap-and-trade, loss and damage compensation and other global wealth redistribution agendas have little or nothing to do with actually preventing a climate crisis, much less offering any benefits. Despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels, global temperatures have not only been flat for going on two decades, but are http://blog.heartland.org/2013/06/cooling-looms-as-earths-true-climate-calamity/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cooling-looms-as-earths-true-climate-calamity" rel="nofollow -



Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jul 24 2013 at 1:45pm
Ok well I don't think this argument is going to go any further. You have a very strict viewpoint that global warming is a huge scam to ruin America for the sole purpose of perpetual Democratic power (which begs the question, why would they want to have power over something not powerful?).

I don't understand your "sky is falling" attitude towards America nor do I understand your belief that scientists are corrupt and would do anything for money. (Also, if you don't believe scientists, then why would you believe scientists who don't support global warming? Is it because they have the same belief as you?)

So I'm just going to go ahead and end this thread on my side knowing that nearly all scientists and scientific organizations have very similar beliefs about global warming that I do and knowing that some people, regardless of the amount of evidence and data, will refuse to believe it. 

I'm not going to waste my time trying to convert those who are absolutely opposed.


-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Jul 24 2013 at 8:34pm
Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:


I don't understand your "sky is falling" attitude

LOL coming from a globull whinning alarmist.


-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jul 25 2013 at 1:33am
Originally posted by bobpreston bobpreston wrote:

Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:


I don't understand your "sky is falling" attitude

LOL coming from a globull whinning alarmist.


If you are going to pick apart someone you might want to at least quote the entire sentence?

Then again, you have never been one for accuracy.




-------------


Posted By: retiredmilitary
Date Posted: Jul 25 2013 at 5:45am
Boy talk about calling the kettle black^^^^^^

-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jul 25 2013 at 6:16am
Originally posted by retiredmilitary retiredmilitary wrote:

Boy talk about calling the kettle black^^^^^^


Oh brother. 

Concentrate on reading comprehension.  You still haven't bounced back from your complete fail a few weeks ago. 






-------------


Posted By: Upper90
Date Posted: Jul 25 2013 at 10:12am
From Kimmel show a few years back:

President Bush has a plan. He says that if we need to, we can lower the temperature dramatically just by switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius.


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jul 25 2013 at 4:39pm
Originally posted by bobpreston bobpreston wrote:

Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:


I don't understand your "sky is falling" attitude

LOL coming from a globull whinning alarmist.

LOL coming from a guy who generalizes all people who believe in global warming into the same alarmist pot. 




-------------


Posted By: John Beagle
Date Posted: Jul 27 2013 at 11:58am
WEATHER CHANNEL 
Founder - Global Warming 
'Greatest Scam in History'

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

Full: http://rense.com/general79/weather.htm


-------------
The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are.
-Joseph Campbell


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jul 29 2013 at 9:30am
Believing or not believing is not the central issue in this climate debate. Weather has changed and will continue to change, from the beginning of time until the end! This much we all know and agree on to be true. The fracture comes as it is made into a left/right issue, in that only a liberal Democrat can believe (or fantasize) that by spending large amounts of money, and growing government, all the while profiting from fictitious carbon schemes,(never let a crisis go to waste) they can control the weather! If the money was printed and created, it would be just another mysterious moment of creating something from nothing, of which they have perfected to an art form. It's not. As in all things levied by our Washington friends, it will come from you and me, in the form of not only extremely high energy bills, but excessively higher prices across the board on everything we buy.
 
We stand on the sidelines and cheer as the Government fines, investigates, levies large monetary claims against business and think, "what a fine job of protecting/looking out for us they are doing", when in reality, they are accomplishing nothing except passing on all of this extra tax money to the consumer who uses these products and services.
 
And since you have replicated the global warming cardinal sin of picking out one place (Washington DC, where admittedly the air has warmed greatly since the Democrats took over in 07) and using it as the standard, lets take a snapshot look at your old home town, Monroe Ohio.
 
The coldest wettest spring in most peoples memory! A summer that came on slow, looked like summer for a short while, sputtered a couple times, had a momentary look that it might be here, then , seemingly died, right at the statistical hottest time of the year. Record cold temperatures occurring on a daily basis as well as record low, high temperatures! Some like this weather, because it is much more akin to October than July, but me, I'm freezing wearing a jacket in the mornings in southern Ohio in July.
 
Yes, I am a firm believer in climate change, and apparently, the mere threat of Obama challenging the weather and the economy with a boat load of money has scared our Summer clean out of the area. The long range forecasts further confirm the gloom and doom, as they say summer is all but over! I am not in the least bit happy about any of these shenanigans, and apparently God is laughing somewhere in heaven at man's foolish ways! LOL


-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jul 29 2013 at 12:52pm
1) Besides the first post in this thread, I've used only aggregate data. Anyone who only uses one data point is beyond being a fool.

2) People have bad memory. Since 2000, there have been 10 new record lows and 48 record highs for Monroe Ohio (source:  http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?month=1" rel="nofollow - http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?month=1 )

3) No scientist (or I hope politician, though we have some dumb ones) is stupid enough to think that we can control the weather

4) In reference to John Beagle's post: John Coleman's credentials in science are very lacking. In that post (which I looked up) he doesn't give any evidence why it is a scam other than just yelling SCAM! If you want to show people why you're right and they're incorrect, a good place to start would be with some empirical evidence.


-------------


Posted By: John Beagle
Date Posted: Jul 29 2013 at 3:34pm
He started the Weather Channel. I think he knows a bit more about the weather than you do Matt. I saw no wiki contradicting this fact that John Coleman thinks about Global Warming and greedy politicians.

Matt you are forgetting the biggest threat to Global Warming and it has nothing to do with man. Solar Flares!


A single big solar flare can put out 10% as much energy as the rest of the Sun combined. 

Solar flares are huge explosions on the surface of the Sun, the result of vast amounts of energy released when magnetic field lines get tangled up and suddenly snap. And when I say vast... a single flare can release 10% as much energy as the entire Sun, the equivalent of 10 billion one-megaton nuclear bombs.

This could melt the polar caps and kill all the polar bears and penguins. And Man had nothing to do with it. There are plenty of other things the the earth and the solar system will do way before it shakes off all it's man fleas* and goes on about its billion billion year evolution.

*Credit Carlin




-------------
The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are.
-Joseph Campbell


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jul 29 2013 at 4:26pm
Ha! Well of course he knows more about weather than I do (I should have seen that one coming). I'm not comparing him to myself. But there are thousands of people who have better credentials and more experience working with data than him and me. I've been quoting them. 

Besides, my point still stands. He said nothing in that article besides just yelling SCAM a lot. Which is basically no different than guys on street corners with signs that say the "End is Near." He isn't going to convince many people without some empirical data, except for people who just like to hear other people spout off talking points and views that align with their own. 

Well of course solar flares impact the environment. There are literally billions of things that can and do impact the environment! I don't think many people have forgotten or neglected this fact. 

The Earth is getting warmer and humans are contributing to that. How much and what the potential impact could be are still up for debate, but nearly all scientists with any type of weather background are pretty much settled on this.

Al Gore was the worst thing to happen to global warming. Once he entered the mix, he politicized it and the public split down partisan lines. Now people are against global warming with nothing to back it up except other conservatives yelling out talking points. 



-------------


Posted By: John Beagle
Date Posted: Jul 29 2013 at 4:50pm
I have to agree with you one everything except one point. 

Al Gore was the best thing that happened to Global Warming, not the worst. Without Happy Al, everyone would see global warming for something that it is not.

As for scientific proof, in 2008, The Heartland Institute, headquartered in Chicago, began organizing international conferences of scientists from across the globe who want to raise and discuss intellectually troubling questions and doubts regarding the theory that human activity is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. Six conferences have taken place to date, attracting more than 3,000 scientists, journalists, and interested citizens from all over the world.

In 2009, Heartland published http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html" rel="nofollow - Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) . That 860-page careful, dispassionate, thoroughly scientific volume, produced in conjunction with the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, explored the full range of alternative views to the UN’s IPCC. Two years later, Heartland published the 418 page http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html" rel="nofollow - Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC , which updated the research regarding global warming and “climate change” since the 2009 volume.

Read these reports and get back with me if you still convinced that man is the only cause of global warming. Or even if man is the leading cause of global warming. 

Shocking conclusion: There is not enough scientific proof to draw any conclusion about global warming. Take for example this excerpt from section 4.1.1 of the Nipccreport.org report regarding Glaciers:

"The full story must begin with a recognition of just
how few glacier data exist. Of the 160,000 glaciers
presently known to exist, only 67,000 (42 percent)
have been inventoried to any degree (Kieffer et al.,
2000). Mass balance data (which would be positive
for growth, negative for shrinkage) exist for more
than a single year for only slightly more than 200
(Braithwaite and Zhang, 2000). When the length of
record increases to five years, this number drops to
115; and if both winter and summer mass balances are
required, the number drops to 79. Furthermore, if 10
years of record is used as a cutoff, only 42 glaciers
qualify. This lack of glacial data, in the words of
Braithwaite and Zhang, highlights “one of the most
important problems for mass-balance glaciology” and
demonstrates the “sad fact that many glacierized
regions of the world remain unsampled, or only
poorly sampled,” suggesting we really know very
little about the true state of most of the world’s
glaciers." http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/pdf/Chapter%204.pdf" rel="nofollow - Continued



-------------
The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are.
-Joseph Campbell


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Jul 30 2013 at 10:37pm
Funny the global whiners have not mentioned this at all. But have one little hot spot in texas and the loons are screaming global warming for weeks.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/30/1122-record-cold-temps-in-the-u-s-in-one-week" rel="nofollow - http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/30/1122-record-cold-temps-in-the-u-s-in-one-week /


-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jul 31 2013 at 10:46am
Wait! This can't be true! This is science after all. Not a single model is true? They are 0 for life then. How did they make it to the Majors and last this long. Oh so it isn't science then, it is theory! But the issue is closed and final so says the anointed one and you are all going to pay regardless. The absolute worst thing to ever happen to America. Barry you are really something.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/climatism-watching-climate-science/2013/jul/30/why-climate-models-are-wrong/" rel="nofollow -
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/climatism-watching-climate-science/2013/jul/30/why-climate-models-are-wrong/
Why the climate models are wrong
 

CHICAGO, July 30, 2013 — Climate science is in turmoil. Contrary to predictions by the world’s leading climate models and despite rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global surface temperatures have been flat for 16 years. How can it be that the climate models are wrong?

Last October, the UK Daily Mail announced that temperature data from the UK Meteorological Office showed no global warming for 16 years. In December, an advance chart from the upcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change showed a divergence between model projections and actual global temperatures. In January of this year, the Met Office revised their forecast of temperatures down to almost no increase over the next five years.
 
All major climate models have overestimated the effects of man-made warming. Analysis by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy shows that 44 of the world’s leading climate models projected an average temperature rise of about 0.5oC during the last 16 years when measured temperatures were flat. The analysis was recently updated to include 73 of the leading climate models. Not a single model made an accurate forecast.






-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Jul 31 2013 at 7:19pm
Look climate change is the libtards religion, you cant see it, hear it, prove it or disprove it  you just have to believe. Now repent your sins and give them your evil global warming money.




-------------


Posted By: Too Many Hobbies
Date Posted: Jul 31 2013 at 11:06pm
I am loving the global warming we have been experiencing last week, this week, next week. We may set a record for the most pleasant summer.

-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Aug 01 2013 at 12:50pm
When you quote institutions that actively deny climate change, credentials are moot. When you quote blogs - there is no credibility.
 
Directly from NOAA: 
 

"Every single month since 1985 has been warmer than the historic average," Holt said. "All 12 of the warmest years on record have come in the last 15 years."[data released by scientists at the NOAA and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies]

The global temperature in every month since February 1985 has been above the 20th Century average for its respective month, according to the NOAA.

As for the warmest years on record, NOAA scientists estimate that the last 15 years have included the 14 hottest years and NASA scientists have said that same time period included the 13 hottest years.

 
There is nothing wrong with denying it, or even saying lies about it - but eventually you'll be called a liar.
 
I think humans have had a hand, but for the most part the earth is in essence "healing" itself. It's a cycle, but we've accelerated it.


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Aug 02 2013 at 12:21pm
This one may be legit!SmileWink
http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-causing-brain-eating-parasites-flourish-194600987.html" rel="nofollow -
http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-causing-brain-eating-parasites-flourish-194600987.html
Is global warming causing brain-eating parasites to flourish?
 
 
 


-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Aug 12 2013 at 9:42pm
http://rare.us/story/associated-press-retracts-bogus-north-pole-lake-photo/

Global BS, Fail. No wonder libtards lap it up their faux news feeds them bs and they eat it gladly. 


-------------


Posted By: Too Many Hobbies
Date Posted: Aug 12 2013 at 10:04pm
We have some trees here changing colors and losing leaves. It is August. I hope this global warming is not causing an early winter for us :-)

-------------


Posted By: Houndog
Date Posted: Aug 12 2013 at 10:56pm
Production of goods that Americans consume like sharks in a blood pool may cause great harm to the entire planet. But you don't see us slowing the feeding frenzy, do you?
As long as people such as Al Gore continue to live in mansions that consume tens of thousands of dollars in utilities per year, I will continue to live my life as I see fit, without a second guess, without remorse. I'll be damned if I let the ultra wealthy tell me I am to blame for the worlds ills.

-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Aug 13 2013 at 7:56pm

Although the NOAA report noted that in 2012, “the Arctic continues to warm” with “sea ice reaching record lows,” it also stated that the Antarctica sea ice “reached a record high of 7.51 million square miles” on Sept. 26, 2012.

And the http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/sea-ice-news-volume-4-3-2013-sea-ice-forecast-contest/#more-91493" rel="nofollow -  latest  figures for this year show that there’s been a slowdown of melting in the Arctic this summer as well, with temperatures at the North Pole well below normal for this time of year. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi calls it “the coldest ever recorded.”

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend#sthash.S0mXzvPR.dpuf


-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Aug 13 2013 at 8:00pm
Guess people are tired of the democrats crap.

http://freebeacon.com/ofa-gets-zero-attendance-for-climate-change-rally/


-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Aug 14 2013 at 12:27pm
A little long, but you will be more at ease for reading!
Relax. It’s not Global Warming ‘End Times’
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/14/global-warming/" rel="nofollow - http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/14/global-warming/
 

By: http://www.humanevents.com/author/marcmorano/" rel="nofollow - 5/14/2013 01:16 PM

 

The level of carbon dioxide, a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale from our mouths, has come http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/13/oops-warmists-wrong-again-la-times-carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-did-not-break-400-ppm-at-hawaii-site/" rel="nofollow - - Gore declared the 400 ppm level “A sad milestone. A call to action.”   http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2013/05/ny-times-warmist-justis-gillis-compares.html" rel="nofollow - - New Yorker Magazine declared “Everything we use that emits carbon dioxide needs to be replaced with something that doesn’t.”  And a UK Guardian editorial declared http://twitter.com/guardianeco/status/333365618780798976" rel="nofollow - - hundreds of factors that govern Earth’s climate and temperature – not just CO2. Renowned http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3490" rel="nofollow - - tripling of CO2 would not have major impacts on the Earth’s climate or temperature.

Scientists also note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=AF8F5B20-802A-23AD-49FB-8A2D53F00437" rel="nofollow - - ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000ppm to as high as 8000ppm . In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/08/10/peerreviewed-study-finds-ancient-earths-climate-similar-to-present-day-despite-co2-levels-5-to-over-20-times-higher-than-today/" rel="nofollow - - peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400ppm was exceeded — without any human influence — 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm.

Princeton U. Physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA Moonwalker & Geologist Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/distinguished-physicist-dr-william.html" rel="nofollow - - wrote .

Princeton’s Dr. Happer, who has authored 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, explained in Senate testimony in 2009 that the Earth http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=AF8F5B20-802A-23AD-49FB-8A2D53F00437" rel="nofollow - - ”Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind…’CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning,” Happer added. 

“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee. “Earth was just fine in those times,” Happer added. “The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started,” Happer explained.

The claim by global warming activists and scientists that CO2 is the global temperature “control knob” has been challenged in the peer-reviewed literature and the Earth’s geologic history.

‘You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide’

Renowned atmospheric scientist Dr. Reid Bryson, (who died in 2008),  http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3490" rel="nofollow - - Stott wrote in 2008. It is not simply,  http://geosciblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/21-different-drivers-in-drivers-seat.html" rel="nofollow - - a September 20, 2008 article . “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors,”RealClimate.org conceded.

Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl dismissed any significance to 400ppm of CO2 in an essay on http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/13/fmr-harvard-u-physicist-dr-lubos-motl-why-we-should-work-hard-to-raise-the-co2-concentration-co2-is-primarily-the-plant-food-while-its-other-implications-for-nature-are-negligible-in-compar/" rel="nofollow - - The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration  – ’The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~390 ppmv, (parts per million by volume). Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level’

In February 2013, global warming activists were stunned by the retreat of one of their former UN scientists. http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/02/03/top-swedish-climate-scientist-dr-lennart-bengtsson-co2s-heating-effect-is-logarithmic-the-higher-the-concentration-is-the-smaller-the-effect-of-a-further-increase/" rel="nofollow - - global warming would not even be noticeable without modern instruments. “The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ — Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic…The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”

In addition, New Zealand Climate Scientist  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10569629&pnum=0" rel="nofollow - - wrote on August 8, 2009 : “At present, the Earth’s atmosphere is starved of CO2.” Plimer, who authored the skeptical book  http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sceptics_create_a_best_seller/" rel="nofollow - - wrote on August 24, 2009 : “There have been ice ages when the levels of Co2 in Earth’s atmosphere have been many times higher than today’s.” Hoffman, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics, co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth.

Other studies have shown carbon dioxide does not control the Earth’s temperature, but it is actually the reverse. See: http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/04/24/new-paper-danish-physicist-dr-henrik-svensmarks-cosmic-jackpot-svensmark-stands-the-currently-popular-co2-story-on-its-headclimate-and-life-control-co2-not-the-other-way-around/" rel="nofollow - - The ice core data clearly reveal temperature increases generally precede increasing CO2 by several hundred to a few thousand years’

 ‘Temperature drives CO2’

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8" rel="nofollow - - LINK ) “[Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun’s heat. That’s just wrong … It’s a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa,” Giegengack explained. “It’s hard for us to say that CO2 drives temperature. It’s easier to say temperature drives CO2,” he added. ( http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0507/gaz01.html" rel="nofollow - - LINK )

http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Temp_%26_CO2.html" rel="nofollow - - Other scientists agree:

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” - Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Marc Morano is publisher of http://www.climatedepot.com/" rel="nofollow -



Posted By: Houndog
Date Posted: Aug 14 2013 at 10:50pm
CO2 is the work of the Devil. Trying to trick us into thinking the Earth and the Universe and such is really old. Like his dinosaur bone trickery. 

-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Aug 15 2013 at 10:15am
What are you disproving here blueblood? There are many scientists who believe in global warming who know that CO2 is not the main or perhaps even the primary factor in global warming. This is well known. Just like it's silly to point out a cold day in August or a hot day in January as evidence for or against global warming, it's also silly to think that there is one factor that contributes to climate.

-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Aug 15 2013 at 10:33am
The coldest winter I ever spent was the summer I spent in Monroe!
Blueblood.


-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: JJFred
Date Posted: Aug 15 2013 at 11:00am
Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:

Also, what happened when the Earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2? It was pretty hot out there. When the dinosaurs were around, with higher CO2 levels, it was also much warmer.


That is a complete lie. I mean, the exhibit at the Creation Museum explains that it was hot here because people were BBQ'ing dinosaurs all the time.

Wink




-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Aug 15 2013 at 8:32pm
Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:

Just like it's silly to point out a cold day in August or a hot day in January as evidence for or against global warming, it's also silly to think that there is one factor that contributes to climate.
Funny that is exactly how you started this forum. Oh look its hot in DC must be global whining!
But now you say not to look at that, so in essence your just another peddler of a false science.


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Aug 16 2013 at 11:53am
Originally posted by bobpreston bobpreston wrote:

Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:

Just like it's silly to point out a cold day in August or a hot day in January as evidence for or against global warming, it's also silly to think that there is one factor that contributes to climate.
Funny that is exactly how you started this forum. Oh look its hot in DC must be global whining!
But now you say not to look at that, so in essence your just another peddler of a false science.


Yet I didn't use one data point, I used 3 years, then I followed it up in subsequent posts with tons more data.

Come on Bob, even in your most surly days you're better than this


-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Aug 16 2013 at 10:42pm
Originally posted by bobpreston bobpreston wrote:

Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:

Just like it's silly to point out a cold day in August or a hot day in January as evidence for or against global warming, it's also silly to think that there is one factor that contributes to climate.
Funny that is exactly how you started this forum. Oh look its hot in DC must be global whining!
But now you say not to look at that, so in essence your just another peddler of a false science.



I wonder how they chose which ones to cook and which ones to saddle up and ride around on.

On a related note...I don't think attendance at the creation museum was going all that well.

They recently installed some "zip lines".

I'm not sure what zip lines have to do with creation or the rest of their message....but it just may attract some much needed visitors. 

Did Sister Theresa miss teaching us about the part in the bible where Peter met with Jesus by rendezvous of zip lining from platform to platform?




-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Aug 29 2013 at 12:15pm
I think I've got it now. Global warming causes the oceans to cool. Brilliant. Your grants are safe for now. With all the activity geared toward choking off the world economy with restrictions, overlooked is the obvious. Ban all forms of exercise that cause any abnormal heavy breathing! Wink
http://news.yahoo.com/cooler-pacific-ocean-may-explain-climate-change-paradox-194050396.html" rel="nofollow -
http://news.yahoo.com/cooler-pacific-ocean-may-explain-climate-change-paradox-194050396.html

Cooler Pacific Ocean May Explain Climate Change Paradox

http://www.livescience.com/" rel="nofollow">LiveScience.com By By Denise Chow, Staff Writer | LiveScience.com – 19 hrs ago
 
Cooling sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean — a phase that is part of a natural warm and cold cycle — may explain why global average temperatures have stabilized in recent years, even as greenhouse gas emissions have been warming the planet, according to new research.

The findings suggest that the flattening in the http://www.livescience.com/16078-earths-surface-warming-1880.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.livescience.com/37003-global-warming.html" rel="nofollow - equatorial Pacific Ocean. When the tropical Pacific naturally switches back into a warm phase, the long-term trends in global warming, including more steeply rising global temperatures, will likely increase, said study co-author Shang-Ping Xie, a climate scientist at the University of California, San Diego.

"We had this puzzle — the concentration of carbon dioxide was over 400 ppm, last year we had record summer heat waves in the U.S., record retreat of Arctic sea ice. All of these things are consistent with the general warming of the climate," Xie said. "Yet, if you plot the global temperature, you see a flattening average over the last 15 years. On the one hand, scientists are saying carbon dioxide is causing the general rise of global temperatures, but on the other hand, in recent years there is no warming, so something very strange is going on."
 
There are still many unknowns about how this warming and cooling in the Pacific Ocean interacts with man-made greenhouse gas emissions to change the Earth's climate.

"We had El Niñolong before we had anthropogenic forcing — they occur independently of man-made forcing, certainly," Moum said.



-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Sep 08 2013 at 3:11pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.

In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html" rel="nofollow - Mail on Sunday , has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming.



-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Sep 08 2013 at 8:31pm
I would say nice find- put you posted a report from and openly conservative / right wing
Publication.

Sorry dude, but when 96% of scientists are in agreement....come on, be realistic.

There's a reason it's not being referred to as global warming much anymore- due to scientific inquiry we learned that its not necessarily warming- but rather changing.

It may not be 100% man made, but we definitely didn't help :-/

-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Sep 08 2013 at 9:43pm
Yeah your so-called scientist claimed it would be ice free by this year. Guess they dont have a clue either. I love your 96% of scientist agree comment. Talk about a dead talking point that falls into the propaganda realm of left wing idiots.

-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Sep 08 2013 at 11:04pm
Dead talking point?

This entire thread is a dead talking point of the wrong wing nuts.


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 6:31am
A government toppled over global warming! If we had been as smart as the Aussies! We had Trillions and Trillions of reasons.
Australia's new gov't vows to scrap carbon tax
http://news.yahoo.com/australias-govt-vows-scrap-carbon-tax-092414302--finance.html" rel="nofollow - http://news.yahoo.com/australias-govt-vows-scrap-carbon-tax-092414302--finance.html
 

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia's new government prepared to take control of the nation Sunday, with Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott vowing to immediately scrap a hated tax on carbon polluters and implement a controversial plan to stop asylum seekers from reaching the nation's shores.

Abbott met with bureaucrats to go over his border security plans and said his first priority would be to repeal the deeply unpopular carbon tax on Australia's biggest industrial polluters.

Abbott's conservative Liberal party-led coalition won a crushing victory in elections Saturday against the center-left Labor Party, which had ruled for six years, including during the turbulent global financial crisis. Labor was ultimately doomed by years of party instability and bickering, and by its decision to renege on an election promise by implementing the carbon tax, which many Australians blame for steep increases in their power bills.

The Australian Electoral Commission's latest count Sunday had the coalition likely to win a clear majority of 86 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives. Labor appeared likely to secure 57.



-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 8:12am

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”


http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5194.Michael_Crichton" rel="nofollow - Michael Crichton

-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 8:44am
Good to know Mr. Crighton, a fiction writer, decided to weigh in with his expertise.

-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 8:48am
I love it when a whole bunch of people that don't believe in Science start to talk about it.

How old is the earth again?

If you can't agree on the basics of a question like this how you can even pretend to tackle global warming?


-------------


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 9:00am
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Good to know Mr. Crighton, a fiction writer, decided to weigh in with his expertise.
Truth and common sense aren't solely the domain of science. 

-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 9:15am
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

I love it when a whole bunch of people that don't believe in Science start to talk about it.

How old is the earth again?

If you can't agree on the basics of a question like this how you can even pretend to tackle global warming?
Don't believe in science?   Sure I do.  And I also believe in adaptation and natural selection.  However, I don't buy macro evolution and that means I don't believe in science? Whatever.  Name calling to win style points.  This is such a disingenuous argument.  I think even you are capable of better.
 
As for the age of the earth,  I don't believe the earth is billions and billions of years old because I'm not bound by the dogma of macro evolution which requires it.  But I am not a young earther either.  So again, if that somehow translates to me "not believing in science", so be it.  
 
But keep calling names.  I know it makes you feel superior.
 
Oh, Cliff, could you please expound on how the age of the earth correlates to global warming?  I'd like to pretend to be able to tackle the issue as well.


-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 10:10am
Well the thing about Science, and I'm sure you'll agree CM - is that no one has to believe it, because it's true either way - courtesy of DeGrasse Tyson.
 
dadof3, if I may ask - what has you convinced the earth is not as old as most science agrees it to be? Is it perceived flaws in carbon dating? etc etc? Just curious Smile


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: retiredmilitary
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 12:32pm
Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

I love it when a whole bunch of people that don't believe in Science start to talk about it.

How old is the earth again?

If you can't agree on the basics of a question like this how you can even pretend to tackle global warming?
Don't believe in science?   Sure I do.  And I also believe in adaptation and natural selection.  However, I don't buy macro evolution and that means I don't believe in science? Whatever.  Name calling to win style points.  This is such a disingenuous argument.  I think even you are capable of better.
 
As for the age of the earth,  I don't believe the earth is billions and billions of years old because I'm not bound by the dogma of macro evolution which requires it.  But I am not a young earther either.  So again, if that somehow translates to me "not believing in science", so be it.  
 
But keep calling names.  I know it makes you feel superior.
 
Oh, Cliff, could you please expound on how the age of the earth correlates to global warming?  I'd like to pretend to be able to tackle the issue as well.
 Why are you even  bringing my name into this???


-------------


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 1:11pm
Originally posted by retiredmilitary retiredmilitary wrote:

Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

I love it when a whole bunch of people that don't believe in Science start to talk about it.

How old is the earth again?

If you can't agree on the basics of a question like this how you can even pretend to tackle global warming?
Don't believe in science?   Sure I do.  And I also believe in adaptation and natural selection.  However, I don't buy macro evolution and that means I don't believe in science? Whatever.  Name calling to win style points.  This is such a disingenuous argument.  I think even you are capable of better.
 
As for the age of the earth,  I don't believe the earth is billions and billions of years old because I'm not bound by the dogma of macro evolution which requires it.  But I am not a young earther either.  So again, if that somehow translates to me "not believing in science", so be it.  
 
But keep calling names.  I know it makes you feel superior.
 
Oh, Cliff, could you please expound on how the age of the earth correlates to global warming?  I'd like to pretend to be able to tackle the issue as well.
 Why are you even  bringing my name into this???
Ha ha, come on retired.   Cliff as in Cliff Clavin.  You know, the resident know-it-all from Cheers?

-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 1:34pm
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Well the thing about Science, and I'm sure you'll agree CM - is that no one has to believe it, because it's true either way - courtesy of DeGrasse Tyson.
 
dadof3, if I may ask - what has you convinced the earth is not as old as most science agrees it to be? Is it perceived flaws in carbon dating? etc etc? Just curious Smile
No, science is not true because it's "science".  Science is an attempt to explain observable phenomenon and science gets things wrong all the time.  Science is not infallable because it is a human enterprise.  And there are plenty of things that science cannot observe or test much less prove or disprove.  That's not to say that it's not a valuable and worthwhile endeavor because it obviously is.  It's just not this monolithic, infallable source of 100% truth. 
 
As for the age of the earth, I'm non-committal.  I don't honestly know.  And it's not terribly important to my worldview either way.  I'm simply saying that it only really matters to the evolutionist.  My worldview doesn't require a universe that's billions of years old.  That being said, there have been demonstrable problems with radiometric dating.   That's not to say it's not useful, but it does seem to have problems which raises my skepticism. 


-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 1:54pm
Mr. Crichton wrote some really good books and was a very smart guy, but I really question his take on scientific consensus. There's scientific consensus everywhere (eg: gravity, is anyone questioning that?) and that's still science. 

Besides, his point doesn't really follow here because there is evidence of global warming (much of which I've posted on this thread or in previous threads). So it's not consensus without verification. 


-------------


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 2:20pm
Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:

Mr. Crichton wrote some really good books and was a very smart guy, but I really question his take on scientific consensus. There's scientific consensus everywhere (eg: gravity, is anyone questioning that?) and that's still science. 

Besides, his point doesn't really follow here because there is evidence of global warming (much of which I've posted on this thread or in previous threads). So it's not consensus without verification. 
No, his point is a brilliant one in that consensus has no bearing on truth and that it is often used to silence opposition.  As to the subject of global warming, the issue isn't whether or not there has been a measurable increase in temperature in various parts of the earth.   The questions that really matter are: 
 
a) Why did it occur?
b) Is it still occurring?
c) Can we control or change it?
d) Do we know the "optimal" temperature for the planet?
 
And there is still plenty of debate on each of them...


-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 4:03pm
Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:

Mr. Crichton wrote some really good books and was a very smart guy, but I really question his take on scientific consensus. There's scientific consensus everywhere (eg: gravity, is anyone questioning that?) and that's still science. 

Besides, his point doesn't really follow here because there is evidence of global warming (much of which I've posted on this thread or in previous threads). So it's not consensus without verification. 
No, his point is a brilliant one in that consensus has no bearing on truth and that it is often used to silence opposition.  As to the subject of global warming, the issue isn't whether or not there has been a measurable increase in temperature in various parts of the earth.   The questions that really matter are: 
 
a) Why did it occur?
b) Is it still occurring?
c) Can we control or change it?
d) Do we know the "optimal" temperature for the planet?
 
And there is still plenty of debate on each of them...


ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

I agree completely! There's plenty of debate about most of those questions (well with "d" I think there's less of a thought about optimal, rather what happens at each degree of temperature. That's at least a better question for scientists. Also I think b is close to being "settled" that yes, it is still occurring).

But yeah, debates over those topics are great! Especially "C". Debates about whether or not it's happening is not. 


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 4:05pm
Oh and there are plenty of debate in scientific circles about most of these questions.

-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 10:01pm
Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

I love it when a whole bunch of people that don't believe in Science start to talk about it.

How old is the earth again?

If you can't agree on the basics of a question like this how you can even pretend to tackle global warming?

 
But keep calling names.  I know it makes you feel superior.
 


Wow

You sure are sensitive.

Feel free to quote where it is that I "Called you a name" to make myself feel superior.

If you dispute things like carbon dating; you don't believe in science.  If you think Dinosaurs walked the Earth with man; you don't believe in science.

No name calling.  It's just a statement. 

I don't even have to bring evolution into the talk.


-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Sep 10 2013 at 7:09am
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/08/global-warming-cleverly-hides-itself-with-1-million-sq-miles-more-arctic-ice/" rel="nofollow -
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/08/global-warming-cleverly-hides-itself-with-1-million-sq-miles-more-arctic-ice/
Global warming cleverly hides itself with 1 million sq miles more arctic ice
 
posted at 5:01 pm on September 8, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

The science is settled unsettling. Comedian Lewis Black said it best on his White Album when he asked, “Do you know what Meteorologist means in English? It means liar.” It seems that we now have more science to settle atop the mountains of previous science which all purports to prove one thing or another. You can decide on the reasons for yourself, but http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html" rel="nofollow - MoS2 Template Master

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2013/09/jewish-mother-sweater-alert-artic-ice.html" rel="nofollow -



Posted By: John Beagle
Date Posted: Sep 10 2013 at 9:28am
In light of this new scientific evidence, we need to combat the planet's desire to return to yet another ice age. But what can we little humans do to heat up the planet?......





-------------
The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are.
-Joseph Campbell


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Sep 10 2013 at 9:49am
Originally posted by John Beagle John Beagle wrote:

In light of this new scientific evidence, we need to combat the planet's desire to return to yet another ice age. But what can we little humans do to heat up the planet?......



Funny you should mention that as evidence, as well as some educated guesses, as to the direction of save our planet (save our funding) might go. If I get to pick, I will take sweating over freezing as a personal preference................Wink
 
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090913-670352-arctic-ice-increases-million-square-miles-by-60.htm" rel="nofollow - http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090913-670352-arctic-ice-increases-million-square-miles-by-60.htm
 
United Nations' Panel Admits Global Cooling?
 Posted 

Global Cooling: The United Nations won't give up its hard-line position that global warming is occurring and man is to blame. But at some point it's going to have to deal with the reality of the world around it.

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is 95% sure that human activity — the burning of fossil fuel for energy — is causing our planet to warm.

So on what, we wonder, will the IPCC blame the coming cooling period?

Because one is coming. At least that's what the IPCC itself reportedly is saying.

The London Telegraph wrote Sunday that a leaked IPCC report "has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century."

And why not? As the Telegraph has noted, "There has been a 60% increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles."

Yes, that's right. The dire predictions of an iceless Arctic made in 2007 were wrong, just as the fearful projections of an increase in global-warming-caused disastrous storms have also been off the mark in a missed-by-the-width-of-the-universe sort of way.

Whether Earth cools or not is a question that won't be answered until a few more years or decades pass.

But this we do know: Earth has not warmed in at least 16 years, maybe more. Data from Britain's Met Office, that nation's arbiter of all things climate, shows global temperatures have been flat since the late 1990s.

If Earth indeed cools in the coming decades, how will the IPCC react?

Will it carry on as if nothing has changed, spreading alarm where there should be none?

Or will it admit there is cooling — and then blame that, too, on man's fossil-fuel burning ways?

What we do know for sure is that the IPCC won't just go away, even though it will have no purpose and in fact has yet to actually have one anyway.

The bureaucrats who run it will find some way to keep it going, though it's of no use. It will happen in much the same way the International Monetary Fund has been able to perpetuate its existence long after it should have been shut down.

In other words, the IPCC will deal with the reality as it always has, which is to say it will continue denying it.





-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Sep 10 2013 at 2:22pm
You honestly think the Earth is going through a cooling period? Or might go through one? Given how much the temperature has risen the last 25 years, it will take a substantial drop for it to go into any type of cooling cycle. 

I thought you were against using one year of data to make any bold claims. One year of more ice doesn't exactly mean we're heading to a new Ice Age. It's pretty preposterous really. Just like the people who think that global warming will cause disastrous effects in the very near future. 

Also, why is the Earth cooling? 






I'm sure you'll say counter that the temperatures have been "flat" since the 1990's. That's certainly interesting, but not entirely accurate. For the one billionth time, complex systems like climate will NEVER be linear. You have to look at the trends across time. These trends currently are pointing in a pretty warm direction.



-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Sep 10 2013 at 2:24pm
Hmm the other graph will not post for some reason.

Here is the link: 

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/_external/2013_08/global-temperature-trend.png?h=260&w=450" rel="nofollow - http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/_external/2013_08/global-temperature-trend.png?h=260&w=450


-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Sep 10 2013 at 7:24pm

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/spencer_ushcnv2_july-temps-us-1913-2012-max-min-avg.png?w=640&h=384" rel="nofollow - spencer_ushcnv2_july-temps-us-1913-2012-max-min-avg.png



-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Sep 10 2013 at 8:03pm

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_timescales.html



-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Sep 11 2013 at 5:30am
I think it's a bit too complicated for YOU to understand Bob.

You posting history clearly demonstrates this.

Don't stress yourself out...and just back coming up with new names to call people who's opinions differ from yours.



-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Sep 11 2013 at 8:36am
Got this for you today,
 
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html
 
In keeping with the referrals to biased sources, I've posted a "left of centre" site and a blog all in one! It's utter perfection!


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Sep 11 2013 at 11:36am




-------------


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Sep 11 2013 at 2:05pm
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:


If you dispute things like carbon dating; you don't believe in science.  If you think Dinosaurs walked the Earth with man; you don't believe in science.

No name calling.  It's just a statement. 

Making a “statement” like “you don’t believe in science” is your way of insulting me and if you claim otherwise, you’re a liar.   

 

So according to you, if a person doesn’t believe every theory or truth posited by “science” (whatever that is), you don’t believe in it?  Who’s “science”?  There are lots of people who call themselves scientists.  There are plenty of disagreements within the scientific community about all kinds of issues.  Which one’s do I have to believe to demonstrate that I believe in science?   There are innumerable things that fall into the category of “science”.  There is no one clearinghouse of all things considered scientific truth, so this is a nonsense argument and a way to insult and discredit someone who disagrees with you.        



-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Sep 11 2013 at 2:14pm
Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:


If you dispute things like carbon dating; you don't believe in science.  If you think Dinosaurs walked the Earth with man; you don't believe in science.

No name calling.  It's just a statement. 

Making a “statement” like “you don’t believe in science” is your way of insulting me and if you claim otherwise, you’re a liar.   

 

So according to you, if a person doesn’t believe every theory or truth posited by “science” (whatever that is), you don’t believe in it?  Who’s “science”?  There are lots of people who call themselves scientists.  There are plenty of disagreements within the scientific community about all kinds of issues.  Which one’s do I have to believe to demonstrate that I believe in science?   There are innumerable things that fall into the category of “science”.  There is no one clearinghouse of all things considered scientific truth, so this is a nonsense argument and a way to insult and discredit someone who disagrees with you.        





Oh brother

Always a victim. 

It's ALWAYS about someone attacking you.  Sounds real  familiar. 

I never said anything about EVERY theory; I mentioned two specifically and I stand by those statements. 

The scientific community does not disagree about the Earth being billions of years old or weather or not dinosaurs walked the earth with man.   Sorry it's just NOT the case. 

As far as the name calling you have it all wrong.  If I wanted to call you a name I would call you it; I don't speak in code.  I'm not passive aggressive like many; I say what I think. 

You can twist my words into whatever it is you desire but I've called you no names up until this next sentence.  Stop lying and stop being a baby. 

See I called you a baby....that's a name...now are you happy?














-------------


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Sep 11 2013 at 2:35pm
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:



Oh brother

Always a victim. 

It's ALWAYS about someone attacking you.  Sounds real  familiar. 

I never said anything about EVERY theory; I mentioned two specifically and I stand by those statements. 

The scientific community does not disagree about the Earth being billions of years old or weather or not dinosaurs walked the earth with man.   Sorry it's just NOT the case. 

As far as the name calling you have it all wrong.  If I wanted to call you a name I would call you it; I don't speak in code.  I'm not passive aggressive like many; I say what I think. 

You can twist my words into whatever it is you desire but I've called you no names up until this next sentence.  Stop lying and stop being a baby. 

See I called you a baby....that's a name...now are you happy?
You sound gotten to cm.....I'm not a victim.  The only person who ever "attacks me" here is you (which doesn't bother me personally, I'd just prefer your nonsense not go unchecked on principle.)  And you didn't refute a single thing I wrote.  Your litmus test for being a "believer in science" is still belief in an ancient universe which I have never even taken a position on.   In fact, I clearly stated I didn't really know.  I didn't twist anything, I didn't lie, I quoted you exactly.  Those are your exact words.  And I'm simply saying you're stupid for believing that.  There, I called you stupid.  Are you happy?

-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Sep 11 2013 at 3:57pm
Gotten to?

In your dreams maybe.

I'm very comfortable which side of this debate I'm on.

Further more I didn't attack you. I didn't say a word to you. You came at me. I don't speak with you in general because it's a waste of time.

What is amazing to me is you believe in many things which require faith with zero evidence and dispute items with mountians of evidence.

Either way..you haven't gotten me..whatever the heck that means.






-------------


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Sep 11 2013 at 4:12pm
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

What is amazing to me is you believe in many things which require faith with zero evidence and dispute items with mountians of evidence.
Zero evidence??  I think not.  I'm not the one who believes something can come from nothing or life from non-life.  That's worse than believing in a higher power.  That's magic...but also a discussion for another time.  

-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Sep 11 2013 at 9:12pm
Yeah my beliefs are magic.

You are something else.


The same voodoo magic they use to tell you how old the earth is and about things like global warming.

Pure, evil magic.

Word to Bill Nye




-------------


Posted By: Houndog
Date Posted: Sep 11 2013 at 11:02pm
CM, you are the Mark Zuckerberg of provocation. You continually create something out of nothing.
You are able to engage people in arguments about their own names.
Or even the perceived calling of a name.
Are you sure you're not an attorney?



-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Sep 12 2013 at 8:39pm

Mr Christy agrees that there has been some warming over time, but says man-made greenhouse gasses are not as big of a driver of climate change as many think -- and that many scientists are in denial about their mistakes.

‘I think in one sense the climate establishment is embarrassed by this, and so they're trying to minimize the problem,’ he said. ‘The fundamental thing a climate model is supposed to predict is temperature. And yet it gets that wrong.’



Read more:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419557/Climate-change-models-accurate-study-finds-widely-overestimated-global-warming.html#ixzz2ejEk9NyT" rel="nofollow - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419557/Climate-change-models-accurate-study-finds-widely-overestimated-global-warming.html#ixzz2ejEk9NyT  
Follow us:  http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline" rel="nofollow - @MailOnline on Twitter  |  http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail" rel="nofollow - DailyMail on Facebook


-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Sep 13 2013 at 8:38am
OK everyone, all bickering aside. Here's a thought.
 
Let's assume one of two scenarios:
 
1. Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling is some kind of scam/conspiracy/liberal concept/conservative concept - so what? What's the big deal? You're telling me that dumping less pollution, and being more aware of our impact on the environment is a bad thing? Really? I'm sorry, but if recycling some of my waste, using less electric, and getting better MPG's while at the same time decreasing emissions is a conspiracy or scam of some sort - I'm in. I don't understand how ANYONE could be against being proactive at protecting the environment or being more responsible with how we handle our waste.

I understand the fears that implementation of some laws or regulations regarding it may, MAY, cause an increase in expenses/taxes/time/etc.etc., but again - is that really a problem? Again, what's the problem with taking care of the environment.
 
2. Let's assume that its not a scam/conspiracy - everyone who has said it was, or has made a strong stance rallying against it - just lost big time.
 
 
I honestly dont think its a scam, but I do think that a lot of what we are experiencing is cyclical. However, I really doubt dumping tons of pollution into the land, air, and water is helping much.
 
I may be young, but I remember distinctly when I was growing up how different the weather is now. I don't remember having drought after drought and then suddenly having tornadoes and unprecedented hurricanes. I remember coming home from school in the spring, and almost every day having to go inside because of a thunderstorm...now that seems like a rarity.
 
My point is, even if its all hokum - name a legitimate reason for not caring for the environment, which we all share and live in.
 
 
GO


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Sep 15 2013 at 10:09pm
OK everyone, all bickering aside. Here's a thought.
 
Let's assume one of two scenarios:
 
1. Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling is some kind of scam/conspiracy/liberal concept/conservative concept - so what? What's the big deal? You're telling me that dumping less pollution, and being more aware of our impact on the environment is a bad thing? Really? I'm sorry, but if recycling some of my waste, using less electric, and getting better MPG's while at the same time decreasing emissions is a conspiracy or scam of some sort - I'm in. I don't understand how ANYONE could be against being proactive at protecting the environment or being more responsible with how we handle our waste.
Nobody is against reducing pollution or waste, we are against the government taxing the crap out of us so they have more money to blow on totally worthless programs that do no good in the scare tactic of global warming. 

I understand the fears that implementation of some laws or regulations regarding it may, MAY, cause an increase in expenses/taxes/time/etc.etc., but again - is that really a problem? Again, what's the problem with taking care of the environment.
Nothing until it is so intrusive that you completely destroy an energy source without replacing it with something that can actually keep up with needs. Wind power is worthless and soon we will see the massive waste on and ancient technology the retards just cant get that it never produces enough energy to even break even on the energy it cost to produce and care for said windmill.
 
2. Let's assume that its not a scam/conspiracy - everyone who has said it was, or has made a strong stance rallying against it - just lost big time.
 
 
I honestly dont think its a scam, but I do think that a lot of what we are experiencing is cyclical. However, I really doubt dumping tons of pollution into the land, air, and water is helping much.
Guess we should fill all the volcanos with cement because they dump more than all man could ever think of.
 
I may be young, but I remember distinctly when I was growing up how different the weather is now. I don't remember having drought after drought and then suddenly having tornadoes and unprecedented hurricanes. I remember coming home from school in the spring, and almost every day having to go inside because of a thunderstorm...now that seems like a rarity.
Funny since the last few years have been some of the quietest years with regards to hurricanes and tornadoes. Have you thought that its just not that many years ago we didnt get 24 hr worldwide news shoved down our throats so we didnt pay as much attention to what was really going on. 
 
My point is, even if its all hokum - name a legitimate reason for not caring for the environment, which we all share and live in.
 
 
GO
The very last thing that will help with any of the above is giving the government more money while putting more people out of jobs for a false science that is not even close to understanding the climate.

-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Sep 18 2013 at 7:53am
Oh brother

False science is now blamed on job loses?

This is funny.

Just call it what it is Bob...it's magic.


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Sep 18 2013 at 1:28pm


PA = per annum (per year)


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Sep 18 2013 at 1:29pm
Man I swear,  have the hardest time putting images on here. Either they keep not being able to be loaded or when I finally can load them, they appear broken

-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Sep 18 2013 at 1:30pm

Try it again


-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Sep 18 2013 at 6:50pm


-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Sep 18 2013 at 6:57pm
Looks like since 1954 not much has really changed.




-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Sep 19 2013 at 8:38am
bob - you need some basic instruction on interpreting stats. That graph further illustrates that you are in the wrong, there are outliers all over the place making it essentially a useless graph. sorry dude

-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Sep 19 2013 at 9:27am
So Bob, using your graphs, your statement: "Funny since the last few years have been some of the quietest years with regards to hurricanes and tornadoes. Have you thought that its just not that many years ago we didnt get 24 hr worldwide news shoved down our throats so we didnt pay as much attention to what was really going on. "

is still wrong. 2011 wasn't that quiet.


-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Sep 19 2013 at 10:22am
Also, looking into a little deeper - you see an increase in tornadoes (because tornadoes are the ultimate indicator of our climatic issues) shortly after implementation of the clean air act...then what happens? This same occurence drops until regulations are loosened...again - furthering the point that something is going on...that's just one thing to point out.
 
I still insist, you don't have to "believe" in climate change...but eventually reality will hit hard.
 
And if it is some sort of left/liberal conspiracy? What conspiracy? To take care of the planet, make our air and water safe to ingest, and leave a healthy world for future generations...wow - what a horrible thing.


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: Houndog
Date Posted: Sep 19 2013 at 2:39pm
There was a great documentary on recently which spoke to just this very point.
Sharknado.
Enough said.


-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Sep 19 2013 at 8:59pm
Looking at that chart is shows things REALLY have NOT changed since 1954. We have good years and bad years but nothing is really that different. You libtards are constantly trying to hold up left wing talking points to fleece more money out of people your not solving anything.

Go to china if you wanna stop pollution!


-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Sep 19 2013 at 9:24pm

CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence results



-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Sep 22 2013 at 7:31pm
Climate change it's not science it's political propaganda.

Several governments who fund the body have since complained about how the issue is tackled in the report.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The US also urged the authors to include the "leading hypothesis" that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat, because most years since have been cooler.

While Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for sceptics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10322332/Climate-scientists-urged-to-cover-up-slow-in-global-warming-it-is-claimed.html




-------------



Print Page | Close Window