On December 21 2012 NOAA will stand for: No One Anywhere Anymore.
Oh come on BG! What the hell does a bunch of PHD book worms know anyway. We are Republicans and we know what is best for the little people and the planet.
F that. Placenta rituals are f-ing gross.
3:52, yeah, and somewhere faintly Mel Gibson's voice will be heard screaming "F********* MEEEEEEEEEE!"
Hey 12-21-12 guy==== that's some funny chit there, man. U rok.
Earth cycles in thousands, tens of thousands, millions of years. To think that 50, 100, or even 200 years of data is proof of any global climate trend is like walking by a TV twice, seeing a Ford commercial each time, and concluding that walking by a television causes Ford commercials.
On December 22, 2012 we'll finally stop hearing from all the idiots.
It's good to see the planet returning to its optimum temperature.
Climate change = scientific fraud
I find it fascinating that so many of you are willing to absolutely ignore the scientific findings made by reputable researchers with nothing more than your own gut reaction as your guide.Earth revolve around the Sun - I don't think so.Sickness caused by tiny organisms - Complete idiocy.Tiny microscopic chains determining human development - Poppycock.Humans affecting climate - Hogwash.I understand the arguments regarding what actions we should or should not be taking. That's a different discussion altogether.But completely denying the scientific results just because you don't want it to be true? That my flat-earth friends, is not a responsible way to respond.
531 - "Humans affecting the climate" -- on Mars?
How should we respond then? "The sky is falling, the sky is falling"
I dont blame Mel one bit.
Now that is a headline I never thought I would see in my life.Felix Unger
5:31 you get it, they don't. most of these aholes spouting their anti-climate change rhetoric here are classic repubs ===>> selfish, wasteful, takers not givers, who can't see beyond their lifetimes to give, or even care to give, our descendants a livable planetary inheritance. that would disturb their ability to continue, or rather ramp up, the rape of the planet for their own personal gain, Palin style. these folks ignore the 3 R's coz its too inconvenient, and don't be dissin on their Hummers, gas guzzlin boats or massive lit up mcmansions with 20000 sqft lawns to water rain or shine either: those are necessities of life. they'll also fight against any legislation that may stimulate a faster renewable energy transition coz that may raise their taxes, and even though most of them can afford to early adopt an electric car, it may pussify their don't give a sheet bout nothin image. they'll still be around to dispute the early signs of a global shortage of food and drinking water when those tilt to crisis levels, but behind the scenes most of them, at least the smart ones, are already aligning their investments to profit from it, just like they plan on profiting from the next surge in oil prices. just do your part and spread the word locally, and maybe, just maybe they'll realize its not so hard to care about the future of the planet and practice green living on an individual basis
DAGO;It's plain that 8:30 that don't have chit,won't ever have any of the same and will never know why.Someone show him the shift key or maybe they are saving ink also.
830 - So what temperature is the Earth supposed to be?
531 you forgot the earth is the center of the solar system... Think I will go purchase stock in sunscreen for this climate cycle thangy.
I would like it to be 72 degrees. Thanks for asking.
Science of Climate Change and politics don't go together.http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/science-turns-authoritarian
830 - The earth's average temperature is approximately 55 degrees, so you'd better pray for more warming.1007 - Nice reference.
ah wordkyle...so typicalYou cite a 2007 article, that "supports" your position that humans do not affect Earth's climate because there is variability in the climate of Mars. That's a stretch even for you, and is itself evidence of just how far you have to go to take your position. In essence, you take the word of one (1) scientist over the "More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries" that say otherwise.Additionally, the article you cite explicitly states, that the views of the WORDKYLE APPROVED scientist "... are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.Only believing scientists that support your own, already established, position is not scientific, intelligent, or designed to promote learning.
Well, the one article I cited, from National Geographic, says that information was taken from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions that indicated a warming trend on Mars. Your argument's with NASA.As for "mainstream scientific opinion" here's a report that lists over 700 scientists who dispute all or part of the theory of catastrophic manmade global warming. Included are their names, experience, credentials, and a description (most with direct quotes) of why they are skeptical. Many are former "believers" who have changed their minds, some because of new data, others because they can no longer be threatened for expressing their true opinions. Is there room in your religion to consider that maybe the debate is not over?
Wrong again wordy...My problem is not with NASA. The observations made by NASA are not the problem. NASA collected data...that's it. The problem is the interpretation of that data made by your selected scientist, Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, who developed his theory that you believe, although almost no scientist on the planet agrees.I have no problem with reputable scientists who have a dissenting opinion. Their work should be studied and their findings should be debated.However I do have a problem with the fact that you are willing to accept the "scientific" evidence provided by a lone Russian or even a few dissenting climatologists, while absolutely ignoring the findings of the vast majority of scientists that disagree with you.You try to have it both ways. You attempt to make a scientific argument...yet you ignore any and all science with which you disagree.Typical.
You're fighting a battle against your own straw man. I linked to the article to indicate Mars was warming without human involvement. Sunspots or sandstorms, 'tweren't us.But since you seem so adamant about the subject, let me present you with a new paradigm:- "It's possible that the sun plays an even more central role in global warming than we have suspected" - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo- "A far more consistent and significant correlation [than with CO2] exists between the planet’s temperature and the output of energy from the sun." - Award-winning Geologist (and former AGW believer, now skeptic) Leighton Steward- “So what are the key players in ‘Climate Change’? The major driver is the sun." - Geoffrey G. Duffy, professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of AucklandThere's plenty more, but you get the idea. Reputable scientists believe the sun is important to this research. I'm not even invested in whether the sun is the major contributor to our planet getting warmer (if it is.) However, it's not unreasonable to believe that the sun has a greater impact than those who treat AGW as a religion will admit. The nonscientific approach is to refuse to admit that explanations other than "man is overheating the planet with catastrophic consequences" may be possible. Shall I trot out all the scientists who criticize the computer models upon which AGW hysteria is based?I fully understand your attempts to insult me and make this discussion personal. Arguing with seven hundred scientists who disagree with you would be exhausting.
You can go here to watch a youtube video debunking some climate change deniers.And even more
wordy - everyone should know that our climate has changed through many cycles for millions of years. This would also likely apply to Mars. However, the one factor that is different in the earth's case is that the human race has gained remarkable influence very recently (the past 200 years). The fact that the climate changes on its own does not invalidate the proposition that humans have caused and are continuing to cause "unnatural" climate change. The full impacts and consequences of our influence are yet to be established. If the change is minor, no big deal. However, by far the vast majority of CLIMATE scientists (those who actually study climate not other scientific disciplines) fear our man-caused impacts will be life-changing in a very negative manner. I suggest you actually review the qualified scientific evidence before continuing your current line of thought.
433 - Interesting video. Here's a quote from Stephen Schneider, a scientist in the video who criticizes the dependence on the "satellite model" for temperature readings: "A consensus among scientists today would hold that a global increase in atmospheric aerosols would probably result in a cooling of the climate." This was written in 1976. Schneider continued: "climatic variability...can be expected to increase along with the cooling." Aren't we hearing similar claims regarding global warming?One other tidbit about the video. It cites a Russian drought that's "the worst in a century" -- indicating that the same thing happened a hundred years ago. Interesting video, though.
1113 - I'm glad that you are describing the mandmade global warming (AGW) theory as a "proposition" now. I'll gladly accept that description. As for your "vast majority," that claim may or may not be accurate. And if accurate, many of those scientists may agree with the AGW theory under social and political pressure. The actual number of scientists who have collected and interpreted data honestly and impartially, and who sincerely believe that mankind is significantly causing catastrophic global warming, is likely smaller than the total number who make the claim. On the other hand, socially and politically, it's almost career suicide for a scientist to disagree with AGW. Now, I've cited over 700 scientists -- meteorologists, physicists (regular, solar and geo-,) geologists, paleontologists, chemists, biochemists and climatologists, many of whom contributed to IPCC reports -- who are skeptical of AGW. Which of those do you wish to say are unqualified?
Scientific "concensus" is not science and therefore shouldn't mean much to anyone. And the same goes for scientific "opinions".Concensus and opinions are not science. Look at me, look at me,,,,,,,,concensus and opinions are not science!!!!!You AGW people, it is profound arrogance to think that you can destroy this planet that GOD made.I wonder if all those "scientists" that believe in man made global warming believe in God, I'd be willing to bet that not a single one of them does.Please stop hugging trees, it's a good way to get ticks.
wordy, scientists propose theories with their supporting evidence. Other qualified scientists try to tear it apart. Those theories that can withstand professional scrutiny become "accepted" scientific fact - until disproved. I can cite far more qualified scientific organizations and scientists who support the AGW position than you can who oppose it.BTW - how does it feel to be supported by the intelligence of 8:59?
1238 - Can you? I've got a list of over 700 names, with CV, right off the bat. As I've said before, science has taken a backseat to politics and payola, and AGW is the result. The scientific method has been tainted, and/or misrepresented by both politicians and the scientists themselves. Several scientists cited in the IPCC reports disavow how their findings have been presented. Others who were previously believers are now skeptics, and describe the chicanery that's going on in the scientific community. The Climategate e-mails which your side minimizes reveals plans to ostracize a scientific journal that dared to publish an opposing viewpoint.As has been said before: "If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid."BTW - I have no problem with 859. His claims are just as valid as saying manmade global warming will destroy the planet.
Post a Comment