It was a sardonic comment with regard to a given part of the spectrum which systematically doesn’t believe anything that isn’t from a left-leaning popular media source, preferably television.
And therefore would hold your citation in disdain.
There’s ample proof of global warming. In Belgium for instance we have the intrusion of exotic insects and spiders, normally found only in much milder climates. Weâ??ve had a dolphin in the harbour of Antwerp and the Dutch and Danes have had whales throwing themselves on the beaches.
For Peteâ??s sake, you even have a negr… err, African American in the white house ! ! !
[quote]hedo wrote:
Global Warming is nothing more then a myth created to secure grant money. The game is over and the thieves identified. Sure it will take the liberals awhile to come around but essentially it’s over.
China by the way owned that pussy Obama again. What a tool he is.[/quote]
I do hope right that the increased heat retention due to elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is now over. How do you know something that no one else does though?
China did indeed own Obama. I suggest we nuke them tomorrow. It’s the only way to deal with foreigners after all!
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It was a sardonic comment with regard to a given part of the spectrum which systematically doesn’t believe anything that isn’t from a left-leaning popular media source, preferably television.
And therefore would hold your citation in disdain.[/quote]
Unlike you who holds anything published in a peer reviewed journal on the topic in distain?
http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful/climate_skeptics_960.gif
…nicely done graph of both sides’ arguments…
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It was a sardonic comment with regard to a given part of the spectrum which systematically doesn’t believe anything that isn’t from a left-leaning popular media source, preferably television.
And therefore would hold your citation in disdain.[/quote]
Unlike you who holds anything published in a peer reviewed journal on the topic in distain?
[/quote]
If you are aware of the Climategate e-mails, you would know that in the field of climate science there was a systematic censoring of dissenting findings and conclusions, and where one journal (just one was willing to do it) did publish stuff, they tried to get that journal viewed as not counting as being peer-reviewed (though it was) and to embargo that journal.
Actually it was known for a long time that this was going on: the Climategate e-mails just brought it to greater attention.
There are a large number of very qualified scientists who have pointed out the flaws in the AGW models and conclusions. They don’t get published in the journals in that field for the reason I stated.
If you are of the opinion that everything, if it’s in a peer-reviewed journal, is correct then you are wrong. Really sadly wrong. If you think that you know very little about science.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful/climate_skeptics_960.gif
…nicely done graph of both sides’ arguments…[/quote]
The graphics are nice.
But they are not presenting the arguments and facts of skeptics: it is rather clearly an AGW person making the lamest possible presentation (other than nice looking graph) on each point.
I suppose anybody could do the reverse: present the opposing arguments very strongly, and then write really, really lame rebuttals – but with nice looking graphs – from the AGW side so as to make them look foolish.
But the AGW skepticism side doesn’t need to pull such tricks.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It was a sardonic comment with regard to a given part of the spectrum which systematically doesn’t believe anything that isn’t from a left-leaning popular media source, preferably television.
And therefore would hold your citation in disdain.[/quote]
Unlike you who holds anything published in a peer reviewed journal on the topic in distain?
[/quote]
If you are aware of the Climategate e-mails, you would know that in the field of climate science there was a systematic censoring of dissenting findings and conclusions, and where one journal (just one was willing to do it) did publish stuff, they tried to get that journal viewed as not counting as being peer-reviewed (though it was) and to embargo that journal.
Actually it was known for a long time that this was going on: the Climategate e-mails just brought it to greater attention.
There are a large number of very qualified scientists who have pointed out the flaws in the AGW models and conclusions. They don’t get published in the journals in that field for the reason I stated.
If you are of the opinion that everything, if it’s in a peer-reviewed journal, is correct then you are wrong. Really sadly wrong. If you think that you know very little about science. [/quote]
Fully aware of the climategate emails. I go into the tea room roughly twice a day and say “nothings working” “my stuffs a load of rubbish” panic panic etc. All scientists do. Most of those emails are along these lines. Also ‘trick’ in science/maths isn’t a con it’s a neat way of doing something. A very small number of the emails do show some serious bad practice. Deleting data is totally out of order. Most of them however are blown out of proportion by people like you for presumably personal ends.
I have already on another thread questioned the models- (Do you look at people’s usernames or just start typing?) but stated that there is still enough real evidence to say there may be a problem. The other thread is the one where you have built a huge strawman over QM modelling by ceasing on a tiny statement.
I would love to debate the flaws of the peer review system. At the end of the day it is better than either mainstream news or ‘I_dont_trust_science.com’
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful/climate_skeptics_960.gif
…nicely done graph of both sides’ arguments…[/quote]
The graphics are nice.
But they are not presenting the arguments and facts of skeptics: it is rather clearly an AGW person making the lamest possible presentation (other than nice looking graph) on each point.
I suppose anybody could do the reverse: present the opposing arguments very strongly, and then write really, really lame rebuttals – but with nice looking graphs – from the AGW side so as to make them look foolish.
But the AGW skepticism side doesn’t need to pull such tricks.
[/quote]
That is all you guys do though…
I feel sorry for the morons that actually believe/believed in man made global warming. These people are now being shown to be tin foil hat wearing retards and they can’t stand it.
As I said in other threads, man made global warming theory is dying. It will take some time for the retards(liberals) to accept that they are in fact retarded but once they come to grips with it we will finally be able to move onto some real science and real progress.
It feels good to say I was never stupid enough to fall for this scam.
Remember in the 90’s when everyone was afraid of a new ice age? I remember being a kid (probably in 1991) and wondering what it would be like when California is an island and everything is frozen… I think I thought there would be woolly mammoths and saber tooth tigers running around.
Then suddenly they flipped it- the world isn’t getting colder, but warmer…
There’s always some impending disaster. If there wasn’t what would the news report during lull times between wars?
I saw an interesting article where the author compiled the history of these flip-flops, complete with a number of pictures of newspaper and magazine headlines of the day.
I don’t recall the exact number but in the 20th century, there were about 7 or 8 periods where the warning was for disaster by heat, and 7 or 8 periods where warnings were for disaster of cold.
Some may find it odd, but the climate changes. And it seems there’s a psychological tendency of many to – as part of seeing themselves as the center of everything – imagine that their day is the day of climate Armageddon, and they are the ones to sound the clarion call warning all of mankind of the true and unprecedented climate disaster (whether heat or cold) that is on the very cusp.
Global warming isn’t real? Oh well all the liberals found another way to ruin the world with hybrids and battery acid.
Well, two things are virtually certain:
In the future, there will be years substantially warmer than now.
And in the future, there will be years substantially colder than now.
In college I read about migratory patterns during the medieval warm period in which much of Scandinavia and Greenland were suddenly suitable for agriculture. Of course, there was a mini ice age after that and these settlements were abandoned. So maybe global warming is nothing new?
No no no, the CRU has proven with both their original hockey-stick graph and the “new improved” one that temperatures were essentially flat right up until the 20th century when they started just utterly skyrocketing.
All the scientists and historians who had it that there were cold and warm periods in the last 1000 years are just big fat liars. Temperatures were constant until now. The debate is over. We have a graph to prove it. (See Ephrem’s link to see the new-improved hockey stick graph.)
There you have it.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, two things are virtually certain:
In the future, there will be years substantially warmer than now.
And in the future, there will be years substantially colder than now.[/quote]
and people will still die, and the government will continue to steal through taxation
-roughly, Ben Franklin
[quote]brodscomode wrote:
Global warming isn’t real? Oh well all the liberals found another way to ruin the world with hybrids and battery acid.[/quote]
Haha. I’ve got nothing against hybrids or ‘green’ energy or anything else. I actually am fairly certain most of the people on the “anti-warming” side don’t either. I think the issue is better approached from a governmental policy angle—ie: IF catastrophic man-made global warming isn’t real, does the government have any business whatsoever interjecting itself in the economic policy and the behavior of energy companies, emissions, etc?
I think a better question to ask is also this—IF catastrophic man-made global warming is real, are we REALLY sure that the current big gov’t plans as of now are anywhere near effective? I’m not. I think they’re bullshit, inefficient and cumbersome…if they’ll accomplish anything at all.
Further, I think it should be noted here that the biggest spenders on “green” energy research and alternative fuel sources ARE THE OIL/ENERGY COMPANIES. They have been wrongly maligned in this regard (although rightly maligned in others).
Im not saying that im against green anything, the thing that pisses me off is the people who think they are saving the world with these cars. “hybrid energy” is a joke as far as cars are concerned when you consider that most hybrids are not that far off fuel economy wise from a traditional car of the same model or something comparable.
I also aree with you on the governmental end, especially giving tax credits for these cars that arent really helping anything anyway.I wont go into the ways that hybrids are horrible for the environment in general because you probably already know, but it just goes to show a general ignorance on the entire subject.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]brodscomode wrote:
Global warming isn’t real? Oh well all the liberals found another way to ruin the world with hybrids and battery acid.[/quote]
I think a better question to ask is also this—IF catastrophic man-made global warming is real, are we REALLY sure that the current big gov’t plans as of now are anywhere near effective? I’m not. I think they’re bullshit, inefficient and cumbersome…if they’ll accomplish anything at all.[/quote]
This is where I agree with you. The saddest fact about cliamte change and the cheif reason we should be concerned about finding a proper response is that the countries it will hit the hardest are already among the poorest and most long suffering. The Copenhagen Consensus dispatched researchers to the worlds most likely global warming hot spots. Their assignment was to locate and ask locals to tell them their views about the problems they face. The things that concerned them the most were and in nearly every case it wasn’t global warming. People spoke powerfully about the need to focus attention on other matters. 'If I die from malaria tomorrow, why should I care about global warming?" “When my kids don’t have enough to eat Global Warming is not a concern for me.” “There is no need for ice on the mountain if no one is around because of HIV/AIDS.” My point is : The money spent on carbon cuts is money we can’t use for effective investments in food aid, micronutrients, AIDS prevention, health and education infracstructure, clean water, sanitation, etc. SO to answer your question they are not effective By 2100 scientist have estimated that 3% of the planet will have malaria. We should be focusing on the real issues and spend the billions elsewere.