Wingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2142 times:
Global warming blamed for unusual cold spell
Nishika Patel
Thursday, February 14, 2008
"As Hong Kong shivers through its second-longest cold spell since 1885, scientists point to global warming to explain the abnormal cold weather phenomenon worldwide'
"We are seeing extremely unusual weather across the world," said polar researcher Rebecca Lee Lok-sze. "This is due to human activities and our style of living. Carbon dioxide emissions are heavy, which is changing the weather rapidly. We could see colder winters and hotter summers in the future in Hong Kong."
Greenpeace echoed the view, saying mainland scientists had also concluded that the extreme cold weather in China was triggered by climate change. "This does not only cause an increase in global warming but also causes extreme weather patterns," said campaigner Edward Chan.
Hong Kong yesterday recorded its second- longest cold spell - 21 days. The longest cold period - when temperatures fall below 12 degrees Celsius - lasted 27 days in 1968. This record is expected to remain intact as the thermometer is forecast to register a low of 13 degrees by Sunday.'
There it is folks. It is official from the alarmist scientist's. Warming means colder temps, or is it warmer temps cause heavy rains, or is it warming means more "extreme". Weather has become climate, and climate has become weather. No matter what the weather/climate does, it's the fault of man-made global warming.
I love the official view from the Greenpeace scientists, oops I mean campaigner Edward Chan who makes it official that warming means anything extreme including extreme cold. As soon as the word Greenpeace appears in any news release, anything that comes after it should never be taken seriously.
This news article provides further confirmation that the issue of climate change, as communicated by much of the media, is about political advocacy and is not about a scientific investigation.
And looking up Dr Lee's Qualafications has revealed that she has transformed herself from a professional designer, photographer, painter and writer to a polar scientist and in recent years, she has devoted her energies to the global environmental movement.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2131 times:
I have you one even better - Global Warming has become so strong and so pervasive that even imaginary creatures are becoming extinct:
Quote: Veteran Loch Ness Monster Hunter Gives Up
Feb 13 2008 By Bob Dow
LEGENDARY Nessie hunter Robert Rines is giving up his search for the monster after 37 years.
The 85-year-old American will make one last trip in a bid to find the elusive beast.
...
Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming.
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8394 posts, RR: 47 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2114 times:
We get it. Some of you think that Global Warming is a cult/church/sect/delusion/conspiracy/fallacy/hypocrisy. Now, could you please get over yourselves before people start hitting "Suggest Deletion" for "discussed to death"? I've avoided these threads like the plague since I seem to always see the same from the same in them, but enough is enough. How hard would it be to include a little thought?
[Edited 2008-02-17 18:21:50]
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
NWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2085 times:
Quoting Aloges (Reply 2): We get it. Some of you think that Global Warming is a cult/church/sect/delusion/conspiracy/fallacy/hypocrisy
No no, MANY of us believe that because it IS. Every part of this movement is crap......the ultimate hypocrite Al Gore, the continuous "be afraid right now" scare tactics, morons shouting that science has come to a consensus about it when it hasn't even come close to any consensus............all of this nonsense revolves around cult, delusion, fallacy, etc.
There's no question the earth is currently warming slightly, but there is no more concrete evidence it's due to humans rather than being a natural course of the Earth, the Sun & the Solar system, or both. Earth has been entering warming and cooling periods for as long as it has existed - and that's much longer than Chevy Tahoes and the evil Americans that drive them have been around.
Hell, we humans in 2008 still can't even accurately predict the weather worth a damn, and the Global Warming movement is trying to establish our overall effect on the Earth's temperatures to some magically near-accurate point. Wow.
Aloges, you seem quite offended/annoyed that many hold the views above, why is that?
Also, are you aware that several credited scientists have come out and said they're flat out afraid to offer any opposing view on Al Gore's cult for the sake of their career and credibility? That should never have to happen.......not in this day and age.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2059 times:
Too cold = Global Warming!
Too hot = Global Warming!
Floods = Global Warming!
Drought = Global Warming!
Too much ____ = Global Warming!
Too little ____ = Global Warming!
Did I miss one?
Or is Global Warming! the first unification theory that science has?
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8394 posts, RR: 47 Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2031 times:
Quoting NWA742 (Reply 5): Aloges, you seem quite offended/annoyed that many hold the views above, why is that?
You could not be more wrong. What does annoy me is the way it is targeted here in this forum as nothing but a "few" environmentalists' pipe dream. That may be because all the arguments people are thinking of have been exchanged, i.e. the topic has actually been discussed to death, but it may also be due to the same tired left vs. right bickering that has soured political discussion in this forum for me and many others. It seems that today, nothing is more important than smearing and ridiculing your enemy as opposed to discussing with and responding to your opponent. I for one don't want to be an enemy in any discussion.
Quoting NWA742 (Reply 5): There's no question the earth is currently warming slightly, but there is no more concrete evidence it's due to humans rather than being a natural course of the Earth, the Sun & the Solar system, or both.
Fine by me, if that is your conviction. I will never agree with it, but will (have to, anyway) accept the fact.
Quoting NWA742 (Reply 5): Chevy Tahoes and the evil Americans that drive them
No, no, no. < /Thatcher voice > "Everyone hates us for being free Americans" is just so utterly ridiculous, especially in this case. But would you even listen if I pointed out what e.g. those burning Chinese coal pits are doing to the environment?
See, that's another thing... the campaign to smear and defame anyone agreeing with parts of Al Gore's film seems much more like a cult. Someone mentions his name, out come people chanting "I am free to do anything I like, I am free, I am free, I am free!" while the amount of people who actually suggest e.g. outlawing SUVs can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38599 posts, RR: 79 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days ago) and read 2015 times:
Global warming is real however it is a waste of time losing sleep over it. The tree-huggers need to realize that $hit happens and the atmosphere is constantly changing. Always have, always will. Let mother nature take her course. Mother nature is moody and is always changing. After all, mother nature is a female.
Those fools that are sterilizing themselves and freaking out over plastic grocery bags are only going to end up getting grey hair prematurely. Be grateful for the life you have and enjoy the short time you are here on this planet.
Wingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1978 times:
Quoting Aloges (Reply 2): We get it. Some of you think that Global Warming is a cult/church/sect/delusion/conspiracy/fallacy/hypocrisy. Now, could you please get over yourselves before people start hitting "Suggest Deletion" for "discussed to death"? I've avoided these threads like the plague since I seem to always see the same from the same in them, but enough is enough. How hard would it be to include a little thought?
The problem is that the news media keeps putting out stories like the one I posted. It has Zero science involved and the people quoted are an interior designer and a PR person. It is a political story not a scientific one. As long as political entities keep pushing the "science" you will continue to have threads like this.
Wingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
How not to measure temperature, part 52: Another UFA sighted in Arizona
"My post How not to measure temperature, part 51 was also cross posted over at Climate Audit, and has created quite a stir when Atmoz, who is at the University of Arizona, tried to demonstrate that the temperature spike shown in the GISS data at Lampasas, TX, was not due to the relocation next to a building and asphalt parking lot, but rather some problem with GISS algorithm to do homogeneity adjustment to the data."
As is typical when an MMTS sensor gets installed by NOAA/NWS to replace the traditional Stevenson Screen, it got closer to human habitation, and in this case, a LOT closer. Too close I’d say:
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7508 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1945 times:
Quoting NWA742 (Reply 5): ....all of this nonsense revolves around cult, delusion, fallacy, etc.
If so then I recommend you never fly in airplanes. After all, airplanes are designed with atmospheric science and physics in mind.
If those scientists don't know what they are talking about (indeed, if the entire science community is corrupt / imcompetent) then how can you trust them with your life? How do you know an aircraft will really work? Do you suppose it was self-evident always? Do you suppose human civilization got where it is today (designing the microchip) by only digesting what is obvious to the naked eye?
How much scientific deductive thinking are you willing to give up in your own life? Those who hate science should not make use of it... otherwise THEY are hypocrites.
Besides, practically speaking... what do scientists have to gain by being biased? Are their IQs low, are they uncreative, or are they dishonest? Which is it?
Do you suppose scientists are publicity hounds? Seriously? I think they are awkward, shy, quiet people who don't have much greed. Science is not the way to make money OR become a hero...
I think scientists are heroes. Without them, we would all be subsistence farmers... advances in chemistry alone are astounding as to our daily quality of life. Science is truth, and is debated scientifically. If you have a scientific argument, by all means pose it to the orthodoxy. Or start your own alternative scientific literature.
To dismiss science is to dismiss reality itself. It's a contradiction because we cannot dismiss reality. So science is real. It just depends on who your favorite scientists are. Apparently some of us think all of today's physicists / climatologists are full of shit.
I am a skeptic as far as it will go. For example I am skeptical of the FDA drug approval process. I believe drug companies distort science (intentionally) with misleading methodology. They "game the system" in order to make money. A statistician can see that.
If I saw the same motivation with climate / physics scientists I would be the first to say so. But there's just no motive, no evidence and it's crazy to say that. One thing I will NOT get pulled into is debating the science with scientists. Scientists can be dishonest in rare cases. But broad truths come from them and nowhere else. To sit back and deduce that the world's scientists are "wrong" about something is extremely arrogant. I do not know how the atmosphere works. Full stop. But we have 1,000s of PhD genius experts who do know. So I trust them.
Just like I trust brain surgeons how to do brain surgery. It's probably very debatable. But when it comes to brain surgery, I shut up and let the experts do their thing. Our whole world is based on this, and we ALL accept it. We are in a science-led world and its creations are beyond our comprehension. We just have to deal with that.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1913 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): Do you suppose scientists are publicity hounds?
How, then, do they get research funds?
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): Science is not the way to make money OR become a hero...
Aren't there plenty of famous scientists?
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): To dismiss science is to dismiss reality itself.
Plenty of scientific theories have been dismissed thru time immemorial. To believe that science right now is finally correct is fallacy in itself. Science has been proven wrong as many times as it has been proven right.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): It's a contradiction because we cannot dismiss reality.
Reality is in the eye of the beholder. What is real to me might not be real to you.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): To sit back and deduce that the world's scientists are "wrong" about something is extremely arrogant
To assume that they are always right is just as arrogant.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): Scientists can be dishonest in rare cases
And science can KILL in many instances. The whole stupidity over nuclear weapons is a good example, where the best minds were brought together, they built and tested the damn thing, and then (after the genie was out of the bottle) decide that it may not have been the best thing to do. And we are still dealing with the after effect of their stupidity. Scientists are people just like you and me, and they CAN make mistakes.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): If I saw the same motivation with climate / physics scientists I would be the first to say so. But there's just no motive,
Research grants are a motive.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 12): The sheer number of repetitions does not increase the validity of false claims.
Funny, it applies to those who believe in man-made global warming as well...
NWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1893 times:
Quoting Aloges (Reply 7): You could not be more wrong. What does annoy me is the way it is targeted here in this forum as nothing but a "few" environmentalists' pipe dream.
And who has targeted it that way?
Quoting Aloges (Reply 7): That may be because all the arguments people are thinking of have been exchanged, i.e. the topic has actually been discussed to death, but it may also be due to the same tired left vs. right bickering that has soured political discussion in this forum for me and many others. It seems that today, nothing is more important than smearing and ridiculing your enemy as opposed to discussing with and responding to your opponent. I for one don't want to be an enemy in any discussion.
Yeah well, that's what the political world has become today, and I agree that it's unfortunate.
Quoting Aloges (Reply 7): No, no, no. < /Thatcher voice > "Everyone hates us for being free Americans" is just so utterly ridiculous, especially in this case.
Actually, it's not. One of global warming's most trusted "activists" Al Gore loves to blame this country any American but himself more than anybody else.
Quoting Aloges (Reply 7): See, that's another thing... the campaign to smear and defame anyone agreeing with parts of Al Gore's film seems much more like a cult.
I wouldn't call it a campaign to smear people who may agree with parts of what he says - hell I certainly agree with him that we should be taking more care of our environment. However those who blindly buy in to everything he says and start calling themselves "activists" for doing so - these people are idiots.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): If so then I recommend you never fly in airplanes. After all, airplanes are designed with atmospheric science and physics in mind.
Perhaps the most idiotic "reasoning" I've ever seen written on this board!
You think I have it out for all science, scientists, and all principals of physics just because I don't believe in humans being the primary cause of global warming?
Hell did you not even see me defending certain scientists in my above post?
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): If those scientists don't know what they are talking about (indeed, if the entire science community is corrupt / imcompetent)
Never claimed nor implied that. Words into my mouth. The entire basis of your response needs a huge
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): Besides, practically speaking... what do scientists have to gain by being biased? Are their IQs low, are they uncreative, or are they dishonest? Which is it?
How about none of the above? Listen, I don't doubt that the majority of the scientists who believe we cause global warming are being honest and non-biased in their claims. I just don't like it when people claim that there has been a concensus drawn in the scientific community over global warming, because there hasn't, and I also don't like it when some scientists say they are threatened by bringing any views apposing Gore's movement into the picture.
You are certainly speaking in the manner that there has been a concensus drawn in the scientific community over global warming, and you're wrong. You somehow make the giant leap of logic that me not buying into Gore's movement is somehow an attack on all science and even physics...........what absolute crap.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): I think scientists are heroes. Without them, we would all be subsistence farmers... advances in chemistry alone are astounding as to our daily quality of life.
Yes.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): To dismiss science is to dismiss reality itself.
What science am I dismissing? Seems to me you're dismissing all the science offering opposing evidence to Gore's movement that you seem to believe in dearly.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): I am a skeptic as far as it will go
Obviously you're highly skeptic over Gore's movement.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): If I saw the same motivation with climate / physics scientists I would be the first to say so. But there's just no motive, no evidence and it's crazy to say that.
Wrong. There are motives for dishonest scientists to join Gore's movement, because it happesn to be very popular today. Think about benefits with regards to publicity, career, and money.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): Scientists can be dishonest in rare cases. But broad truths come from them and nowhere else.
Scientists are humans and humans tend to be dishonest individuals more so than honest, I hate to break it to you. Broad truths don't just come from science, either. I'd say they can come from philospophy, religion, morality, and spirituality as well. They do for many people, including me.
Again, you somehow think that me not buying into Gore's movement is somehow an attack on all science and even physics...........you couldn't be further from the truth. It's really because I respect science and the truth more than global warming alarmists, because I feel not enough evidence has been established in EITHER direction to firmly take a side in this issue.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1861 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 16): "Belief" is just not required due to the presence of verifiable evidence.
Verifiable evidence can change according to the newest theories. There have been plenty of theories, proven during their time by 'verifiable evidence', that have been proven incorrect after additional evidence came to light.
And climate does NOT have the best record of correct prediction, witness the predictions of the last two hurricane seasons. You are essentially asking me to believe in a science that cannot verify what the weather will do two weeks from now but that they are correct in assumptions about what it will do ten years from now.
Again, if you had lived in the past, both recent and long past, you would have defended many consensus theories that are no longer applicable.
Hell, even last night I was watching a program about T-Rex last night. In my short 36 years, I have seen T-Rex assumptions (with verifiable evidence) change THREE times. Lately, dinosaur theories are changing AGAIN to believing that dinosaurs may NOT have disappeared after all, but that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs. And yet, seeing how science is ALWAYS in a state of flux, you are asking me to believe that this time they are correct.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20902 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1855 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17): Verifiable evidence can change according to the newest theories.
Wrong. It's the theories which have to adapt if the evidence requires it.
Thus far the theory of a significant human influence on global climate change has not just not been debunked by verifiable evidence, it has actually been vindicated the more the more evidence is accumulated. It has grown from a crazy and laughed-about outsider hypothesis to the mainstream theory in the climatology field of natural science which is now the basis for worldwide policy changes.
It takes a high level of consistency with accumulating evidence for a theory to get that far.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7508 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1844 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17): Hell, even last night I was watching a program about T-Rex last night. In my short 36 years, I have seen T-Rex assumptions (with verifiable evidence) change THREE times. Lately, dinosaur theories are changing AGAIN to believing that dinosaurs may NOT have disappeared after all, but that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs. And yet, seeing how science is ALWAYS in a state of flux, you are asking me to believe that this time they are correct.
This is all fair game. And I will feed you another example you may already know. Geologists did not believe in "plate tectonics" until the 1960s, if not later. That's the most basic thing about geology, and the scientists did not get it! In fact they were hostile to it for the longest time!
I think scientists can get on the wrong track. But at least, when science IS wrong, it has good self-correction mechanisms. The best way to solve problems like this is to become a scientist. Skeptics are very valuable.
I am willing to entertain the idea that climate change from Co2 and coal plants is an unproven theory. But that seems random. So many phenomena are even more poorly understood. Fact is, you can model planet Earth, covered by an atmosphere like ours. You can cut down forests in that model, and add Co2. At the atomic level, you can simulate what happens.
That's what they are doing. The Earth is complicated but not THAT complicated. They are NOT predicting cloud patterns and hurricanes (very hard tasks). Instead, they are modeling 1 ball in space covered with air, against 1 Sun.
As they change the surface of the ball, its atmosphere composition etc, its temperature will change according to basic physics. Pretty simple right.
They know the forest coverage over time. They know our human Co2 emissions. Established laws of physics can explain what happens (if anything). The computer spits out an answer.
With those results, we get into debating "does sunlight against a co2 molecule induce heat-trapping" which we know to be a molecular fact, it does. Look at Venus for a nice example.
Just surmising HOW they do this work, but I really have no idea.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1819 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 18): Wrong. It's the theories which have to adapt if the evidence requires it.
Easy to have a global warming theory, when history and prior evidence shows that global warming and cooling have been a normal part of earth history for millenia. Global warming and cooling would have occurred whether we'd be responsible for it or not. My only issue is whether it is human caused. And my biggest question is whether the solution proposed is worse than the disease.
Humans have HAD to adapt to climate change since our arrival here. The Sahara is quite recent by earth history. The Pueblo indians were affected by a prolonged drought. The last Ice Age occurred a mere 10,000 years ago.
And frankly, global warming is NOTHING compared to other disasters that befall the earth in a regular basis. Eathquakes can create big tsunamis. The Cumbre Vieja could have a landslide anytime. Or we could have another meteor hit the earth, with an interesting article attached.
All I care about in the end is for BOTH sides to realize that science changes constantly, and the attitude that STOPS progress is the belief that 'now we have it right'. DO NOT STIFLE DEBATE, regardless of your opinions.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 19): The Earth is complicated but not THAT complicated.
Yes, it is complicated and remains so. When you do a search for what science has NOT been able to answer, you'd find some very basic questions in that list. Did you know, for example, that science still does not have an answer for how felines purr?
And reminds me of the same T-Rex show last night, as they were making comparisons with Jurassic Park. In the years since the movie came out, scientists have found that there are other (not understood steps) to get the Jurassic Park concept to happen.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20902 posts, RR: 55 Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1798 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): Easy to have a global warming theory, when history and prior evidence shows that global warming and cooling have been a normal part of earth history for millenia. Global warming and cooling would have occurred whether we'd be responsible for it or not.
For the current rapidly accelerating change which is what we're dealing with now, scientists have found entirely (or even predominantly) natural causes to be increasingly unlikely.
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): My only issue is whether it is human caused.
That is exactly what the theory in question is all about, not about the undisputed reality of natural cycles.
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): And my biggest question is whether the solution proposed is worse than the disease.
That's not even a good joke.
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): Humans have HAD to adapt to climate change since our arrival here.
And they've had several very close calls.
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): The Pueblo indians were affected by a prolonged drought.
And there are indications that at least some of them starved and/or abandoned their homes after damaging or destroying the ecosystems around them. This kind of thing has happened several times in different regions of the world.
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): And frankly, global warming is NOTHING compared to other disasters that befall the earth in a regular basis. Eathquakes can create big tsunamis. The Cumbre Vieja could have a landslide anytime. Or we could have another meteor hit the earth, with an interesting article attached.
Total fatalism is the least convincing approach to any possible problem I know.
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8394 posts, RR: 47 Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1785 times:
Quoting Slider (Reply 21): The real conservationist and rational discussion jumped the shark a few years ago.
How so? You could only get that impression if all you follow was prime time mass media coverage.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
25 AndesSMF: Really, DDT and kudzu come to mind. Lobotomies as well. There have been plenty of cases where the cure was worse than the disease. CO2, which is requ
26 Santosdumont: Unfortunately, the political skullduggery from the White House aimed at bona fide scientific research on the global warming issue -- coupled with "fi
27 Slider: Or Anet... Aloges, unfortunately, the mass media HAS framed the debate and thus it has become rather polarized. The rational thought has been drowned
28 Wingnut767: Speaking of political skullduggery. Green crusades lot of talk By Stephen Dinan, Washington Times February 19, 2008 Sens. John McCain and Barack Obam
29 AndesSMF: So, you think only one side has done so??
30 Wingnut767: Which scientists? Which studies have shown that natural cause is unlikely? From the RSS monthly anomalies. Where is the rapid accelerating increase?
32 Aloges: Which is exactly why I posted reply 2. I would much appreciate discussion beyond the level that makes national/worldwide headlines these days, but al
33 Slider: yeah, cherries are endangered because of rising temperatures! Crops are being made extinct! LMAO!! Good points though, seriously.
34 Wingnut767: Another Global Temp Index Dives in January 08, This Time HadCRUT The global surface temperature anomaly data from the UK Hadley Climate Research Unit
35 AverageUser: One significant factor might be that the sources are considered unreliable, and having a tendency. Your graph as such has not been produced by the UK
36 JoshSixtySeven: In some parts of the world, the creation story is called "science", go figure
37 Wingnut767: " target=_blank>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...cecap Once again with the typical alarmist response. If you do not like the fugures attack the
38 Wingnut767: Little or no warming in the last ten years and a cooling trend the last few.Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributabl
39 AverageUser: I for one am not in the habit of quoting those sites since their contents could be compromised. I hope your "government" does not include any (or all
40 Wingnut767: But that still does not answer And I have never met or heard of a scientist called "consensus" And the last graph continues to show that no year sinc
41 AverageUser: One of the remaining great mysteries of our times that I for one can't crack. But that I know it was predicted a relatively long time ago that global
42 Wingnut767: Well lets look at the hadley Center review for 2006. 1. Is the Hadley Centre world leading? The Hadley Centre is currently regarded as a world leadin
43 Wingnut767: Okay here is the Actual Hadley projection for the next 100 years. While not quite and Atlas V rocket it is quite the Climb rate. Now look at the rate
44 4holer: Ironically, here's an article I just happened to come across the same day I waded thru this thread. A noted "skeptic" and his point of view. http://ti
45 N229NW: great post! All academics and scientists need to be funded. But their conclusions are free in general when the funding comes from universities and sc
46 AverageUser: The "other side" have their handful of scientists with opposing views, and a healthy number of followers who mainly hail from the U.S., and a lot of
47 AverageUser: [Professor Robert C.] Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (
48 Elite: Agreed. We THINK we know a lot about the world and that our technology is very advanced, but in reality our knowledge is minuscule.
49 AverageUser: I would not say it is minuscule, but a great part of it is directed to doing things the wrong and harmful way.
50 Cpd: Whatever some may say, doing nothing about climate change and environmental issues such as air quality, could be catastrophic. Making concrete changes
51 CALTECH: The ICE is coming. Global warming might just be over, the sun is not putting out as much energy. Time will tell. Like Wingnut767 says, the global warm
52 AverageUser: Actually if you step outside the Denialnet for a while and look at the recent real life evidence you'll see that that ice is going fast -- and totall
53 CALTECH: How is it there in Denialnet Finland ? Never been there. Hope you are comfortable there. Anyway, Ice is going fast huh? Still hanging on to that ther
54 4holer: " target=_blank>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...lling Easy with the smug there, chief. I was just posting an article. If you wanted to try to
55 AverageUser: Moron Joni (sorry this is an insider thing), yes I know they're trolling, and some are pretty desperate in that as well. There's something good comin
56 AverageUser: So was I, so we both need to take it easy apparently? Pity you did not mention his links with the oil industry outright and I had to do it. I don't k
58 CALTECH: Good to see all the mmgw trolls coming out of the internet still in support of it, even with the mounting evidence that this period, like other period
59 CALTECH: Just like the mmgw alarmists, making it into something its' not. There is a big difference between 140 and 140,000,000, don't you see that AverageUse
60 AverageUser: Thanks for the suggestions! Here the corrected version. Since the figure was mentioned twice, I somehow managed to give the other instance a badly wro
61 DeltaOwnsAll: at least global warming isnt as bad as it was in 1885...
63 AverageUser: Yesterday certainly was not my day in the way of numbers. Thanks for having that keen eye!
64 CALTECH: Someone is really having problems with basic math. http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126220/environment/advance1_e.htm From the article; "The total amo
66 Baroque: I think that possibly even a sceptic might notice if 140 cubic kms of cold water fell on them? We have had a very wet "summer" in E NSW, but taken up
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8394 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38599 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
