I agree that the planet may be shifting in temprature. What I disagree with is the cause of that change and the effect it will have.
To disregard the changes that have occured over the past several million years in favor of an alarmist viewpoint that we are destroying the planet is just plain foolish and egocentric.
It is my guess that modern environmentalists need something to feel guilty about. Origional sin just doesn’t do it for them. But the notion that our presence on earth and that we are destroying it does. They’ve replaced the old Father with a new Mother Earth, and wanna-be gurus like Al Gore have positioned themselves to take full advantage of these guilt ridden saps. Now all they have to do is pay attonement in the form of carbon credits, and all is forgiven. You will be restored to a clean and green state of being, and that dirty carbon footprint will be washed away with a few cleansing dollars.
The paralells of hypocracy in televangelism and environmentalism are amazing. Al Gore is the new Benny Hinn.
No relation to regional climate change on the other planets and the global warming on earth. Also sun has been ruled out as source of global warming.
Some scientists remembered there was a sun and added it to models.
The sun has been ruled out? What a fucking joke. Everyone understands the sun is the source of the heat. You are really clueless!!![/quote]
I didn’t say a source of heat. Jeebus, yes the sun is hot Zap.
No relation to regional climate change on the other planets and the global warming on earth. Also sun has been ruled out as source of global warming.
Some scientists remembered there was a sun and added it to models.
The sun has been ruled out? What a fucking joke. Everyone understands the sun is the source of the heat. You are really clueless!!!
The guys said the sun has been ruled out as the source of global warming. I don’t know if that’s true. He didn’t say it isn’t the source of the heat. He said global warming
Yet you come to the conclusion that he thinks the sun isn’t the source of heat in our solar system ? ? ?
You’re either stupid or don’t have a basic understanding of the English language. Either way, you are indeed really clueless.
I see that a lot in the global warming discussion. People who are barely able to write down their own name are questioning established scientists. The consensus is that there is a global warming. That doesn’t make it a fact, but it means we have to consider it.
And if you don’t know anything about science and the meaning of consensus in science: it’s not a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. That’s merely a consensus.
Heat causes warming.
Now that we have that out of the way any scientist that claims the increased output of the sun is not responsible in whole or in part for increased Earth temperatures must demonstrate why.
As the data is so sketchy and incomplete and the fact that no one can even say what the temperature of the Earth is I am very wary of any scientist that makes such a claim.
In fact I think they are lying or being misrepresented by media reports.
As an engineers that has been in the environmental business for 15 years I am fully capable of seeing the holes in the politically motivated global warming promoters arguments.
The people that don’t understand that warming comes from heat are not as fortunate as I am.[/quote]
They uh, have demonstrated that there isn’t increased output from the sun, or at least not since the 80’s. Phony scientists tend to stop their charts in the 80’s to make the false point you’re making. (Most hilariously in the ironically named “Swindle”). So as I said, sun ruled out as the reason for our recent, rapid global warming. But yes Zap that sun is hot (although it’s odd that you believe this, since there appears to be an overwhelming consensus on this too), good for you!
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I agree that the planet may be shifting in temprature. What I disagree with is the cause of that change and the effect it will have.
To disregard the changes that have occured over the past several million years in favor of an alarmist viewpoint that we are destroying the planet is just plain foolish and egocentric.
It is my guess that modern environmentalists need something to feel guilty about. Origional sin just doesn’t do it for them. But the notion that our presence on earth and that we are destroying it does. They’ve replaced the old Father with a new Mother Earth, and wanna-be gurus like Al Gore have positioned themselves to take full advantage of these guilt ridden saps. Now all they have to do is pay attonement in the form of carbon credits, and all is forgiven. You will be restored to a clean and green state of being, and that dirty carbon footprint will be washed away with a few cleansing dollars.
The paralells of hypocracy in televangelism and environmentalism are amazing. Al Gore is the new Benny Hinn.
[/quote]
Take your tinfoil hat off.
You are over analyzing the mindsets of scientists just wee too much.
I see that a lot in the global warming discussion. People who are barely able to write down their own name are questioning established scientists. The consensus is that there is a global warming. That doesn’t make it a fact, but it means we have to consider it.
And if you don’t know anything about science and the meaning of consensus in science: it’s not a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. That’s merely a consensus.
I see this a lot in GW discussions. Uneducated idiots thinking junk science is anywhere close to real scientists.
But - the new school of outcome-based “science” has certainly fooled a lot of people. Too bad they haven’t the collective intelligence to unwrap a piece of Juicy-Fruit. [/quote]
Dude, if you can’t figure out what broke means, you’re really not going to get “science”
No relation to regional climate change on the other planets and the global warming on earth. Also sun has been ruled out as source of global warming.
Some scientists remembered there was a sun and added it to models.
So the sun doesn’t warm anything?
Maybe you need to find a new crew of Junk Scientists to quote if they “forgot” there was a sun.
[/quote]
Hilarious,
Yes rainjack the sun is hot! (God you and zap really working those brains today!)
I see that a lot in the global warming discussion. People who are barely able to write down their own name are questioning established scientists. The consensus is that there is a global warming. That doesn’t make it a fact, but it means we have to consider it.
And if you don’t know anything about science and the meaning of consensus in science: it’s not a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. That’s merely a consensus.
I see this a lot in GW discussions. Uneducated idiots thinking junk science is anywhere close to real scientists.
But - the new school of outcome-based “science” has certainly fooled a lot of people. Too bad they haven’t the collective intelligence to unwrap a piece of Juicy-Fruit.
Dude, if you can’t figure out what broke means, you’re really not going to get “science”
[/quote]
I’m not the one following a bunch of scientists that forget about the sun having something to do with warming the globe.
And I understand full well what broke means. You are the one having trouble with that.
[quote]100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I agree that the planet may be shifting in temprature. What I disagree with is the cause of that change and the effect it will have.
To disregard the changes that have occured over the past several million years in favor of an alarmist viewpoint that we are destroying the planet is just plain foolish and egocentric.
It is my guess that modern environmentalists need something to feel guilty about. Origional sin just doesn’t do it for them. But the notion that our presence on earth and that we are destroying it does. They’ve replaced the old Father with a new Mother Earth, and wanna-be gurus like Al Gore have positioned themselves to take full advantage of these guilt ridden saps. Now all they have to do is pay attonement in the form of carbon credits, and all is forgiven. You will be restored to a clean and green state of being, and that dirty carbon footprint will be washed away with a few cleansing dollars.
The paralells of hypocracy in televangelism and environmentalism are amazing. Al Gore is the new Benny Hinn.
Take your tinfoil hat off.
You are over analyzing the mindsets of scientists just wee too much.
[/quote]
So, when did envirnmentalists become “scientists” ?
You know with the way you throw that word around, I don’t think you have even the slightest inclination of what you are trying to talk about.
Come on 100, cut lose with the goods and let us know what a “scientist” is and what “science” is all about.
I see that a lot in the global warming discussion. People who are barely able to write down their own name are questioning established scientists. The consensus is that there is a global warming. That doesn’t make it a fact, but it means we have to consider it.
And if you don’t know anything about science and the meaning of consensus in science: it’s not a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. That’s merely a consensus.
I see this a lot in GW discussions. Uneducated idiots thinking junk science is anywhere close to real scientists.
But - the new school of outcome-based “science” has certainly fooled a lot of people. Too bad they haven’t the collective intelligence to unwrap a piece of Juicy-Fruit.
Dude, if you can’t figure out what broke means, you’re really not going to get “science”
I’m not the one following a bunch of scientists that forget about the sun having something to do with warming the globe.
And I understand full well what broke means. You are the one having trouble with that.
Project much?
[/quote]
Scientists understand there is a sun. They are able to do sciency stuff to determine whether it is the reason for our rapid, recent global warming. It isn’t.
I know you understand what broke means. Everybody does. That’s why I said you lied. Sensible folks agreed.
So, when did envirnmentalists become “scientists” ?
[/quote]
Exactly my point.
Global warming wasn’t invented by dirty hippy tree huggers. It’s effects in the future, also not modeled by greenpeace donators. These effects are modeled by scientists. Also nevermind that thus far their models have been just a tad conservative–reality outpacing the predictions and all that.
But still, go on bloviating on what godless earthlovers are conspiring up next in absence of the father etc…
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
Let’s stick to science and blame it on the Sun…
No relation to regional climate change on the other planets and the global warming on earth. Also sun has been ruled out as source of global warming.
Some scientists remembered there was a sun and added it to models.
The sun has been ruled out? What a fucking joke. Everyone understands the sun is the source of the heat. You are really clueless!!!
The guys said the sun has been ruled out as the source of global warming. I don’t know if that’s true. He didn’t say it isn’t the source of the heat. He said global warming
Yet you come to the conclusion that he thinks the sun isn’t the source of heat in our solar system ? ? ?
You’re either stupid or don’t have a basic understanding of the English language. Either way, you are indeed really clueless.
I see that a lot in the global warming discussion. People who are barely able to write down their own name are questioning established scientists. The consensus is that there is a global warming. That doesn’t make it a fact, but it means we have to consider it.
And if you don’t know anything about science and the meaning of consensus in science: it’s not a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. That’s merely a consensus.
Heat causes warming.
Now that we have that out of the way any scientist that claims the increased output of the sun is not responsible in whole or in part for increased Earth temperatures must demonstrate why.
As the data is so sketchy and incomplete and the fact that no one can even say what the temperature of the Earth is I am very wary of any scientist that makes such a claim.
In fact I think they are lying or being misrepresented by media reports.
As an engineers that has been in the environmental business for 15 years I am fully capable of seeing the holes in the politically motivated global warming promoters arguments.
The people that don’t understand that warming comes from heat are not as fortunate as I am.
They uh, have demonstrated that there isn’t increased output from the sun, or at least not since the 80’s. Phony scientists tend to stop their charts in the 80’s to make the false point you’re making. (Most hilariously in the ironically named “Swindle”). So as I said, sun ruled out as the reason for our recent, rapid global warming. But yes Zap that sun is hot (although it’s odd that you believe this, since there appears to be an overwhelming consensus on this too), good for you!
Notice how not one single fact that disputes 100Meters’ beliefs ever gets though to him?
One scientist says one thing, and he is to be ignored, or put down. Another says the opposite and it is the gospel truth, assuming it agrees with 100M’s preconceived notions. But I have to say I love how this guy thinks.[quote]
Some scientists remembered there was a sun and added it to models. [/quote]
Hey, there is a sun. Duh. So the global warming scientists didn’t know at first that the sun existed? And we are supposed to believe them?
But he does point out that one scientist has proven that the sun is not involved in the increase in global temperature. In fact he quotes the scientist, saying:[quote]
They uh, have demonstrated that there isn’t increased output from the sun, or at least not since the 80’s. Phony scientists tend to stop their charts in the 80’s to make the false point you’re making. [/quote]
Yep, this is 100meters almost quoting the article. But that is interesting when this quote was in an article put out by the AP linked in a previous post by jlesk68 :
Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, said a study published on Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of data from satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.
So when this person said nobody looked at the temperature output of the sun past 1980, was he was wrong, or lying? Actually I think he paraphrased, and quoted the article, not so much the scientist.
I should also point out that the scientist who says the sun is not the source just looked at charts, while the other actually studied satellite data. This is more like a review then a study.
Besides, why do we have to ignore everything before it, and believe one
�??study�??? Many studies are flawed. Many studies are faulty. When the information is published, it is the job of scientists to tear it apart. To attempt to disprove it… That is the way science works.
Now the scientist is a professor who has published research on the sun. But he is not a climatologist. Should this be taken into account?
Anyway even if the sun’s output has not increased since the 80’s, there is a delay in effects on the atmosphere. The Earth’s atmosphere is actually quite slow at reacting to changes in temperature. It takes time for the temperature to rise, and it takes time for it to drop. A good example of this is in the seasons. After the first day of spring, the amount of sunlight is dropping daily, and yet the temperature keeps climbing. The same is true in the opposite direction in winter. The temperature keeps dropping even though the days get longer.
You know, like how the temperature of the oven stays constant, and yet the chicken inside keeps getting warmer.
Back to that supposed study, after looking at it, it simply looks more like an argument using previous study information. He mentions that according to the data he read, solar radiation peaked in 1987. But nowhere does he say how long it takes for the atmosphere to heat up from that increased temperature, not how it should react. In fact his observation is only on sun output. (From the quick read I gave that is what I understood.) But it is not this simple as I pointed out earlier. If it was, there wouldn’t be any ice caps.
This information about the inefficiency of the atmosphere cannot be ignored, nor discounted, especially when the whole theory of global warming is dependent on this. The whole theory is based on this inefficiency. (And without it we would fry during the day, and freeze at night.)
Now about this discussion so far, it was kind of twisting the facts to say that 100meters was saying that the Sun didn’t produce heat. That was obvious. And it is exactly the same thing when he says that people are saying that the globe is not getting hotter.
Also once again people are bringing up the idea that consensus is a scientific term. Again no, it is a political term, not a scientific one. Popularity does not make an idea correct. And no, the fact that the scientific community believes the Earth revolves around the Sun is not science. The fact that nobody can disprove it makes it science.
Exactly my point.
Global warming wasn’t invented by dirty hippy tree huggers.[/quote]
Right, the father of modern global warming is a nutjob as crazy or crazier than any modern hippy tree hugger. Hansen’s tirades and doomsday forecasts are very reminiscent of the inane things that come out of Pat Robertson’s mouth.
Can I take that as a criteria? If a Climatologist or their source of funding has contributed to Greenpeace their input is biased and void? Moreover, you’re missing the essential problem; that a steady climate hypothesis or natural climate shift hypothesis draws no funding (and even automatic derision) regardless of the scientists’ personal views or the supporting data.
You misunderstand, the models have been wrong. Virtually all predicted less precipitation, we’ve actually observed more. Most didn’t and still don’t account for aerosols and the complexity they contribute to warming. Those two points alone are key, as precipitation and aerosols are completely intertwined and aerosols alone are seen as being as powerful, if not more so, than CO2 and neither precipitation nor aerosols are near completely understood, let alone their interactions.
The only place the models have been conservative in the context of your statement is with regard to melting in portions of the Arctic. On top of that, the regions in question have been shown to violate the conventional climate wisdom that small regions don’t necessarily translate to a warmer climate.
Finally, you make a fundamental misunderstanding that is classically drilled into statisticians and anyone who does mathematical models. The model doesn’t dictate reality. Thus, a ‘conservative’ model is still a wrong model and rather means you don’t necessarily understand the reality you’re modeling rather than you having omniscience and a typo.
The hallmark of good science is that it uses models and “theories” but never believes them.- Martin Wilk
Factor analysis is useful, especially in those domains where basic and essential concepts are essentially lacking and where crucial experiments are difficult to conceive … In a domain where fundamental and fruitful concepts are already well formulated and tested, it would be absurd to use the factorial methods except for didactic purposes to illustrate factorial logic.- L.L. Thurstone
In developing procedures, mathematical statisticians have assumed that techniques involving numerical scores [etc.] … are to be applied where these numbers … are appropriate and meaningful within the experimenter’s problem. If the statistical method involves the procedures of arithmetic used on numerical scores, then the numerical answer is formally correct. Even if the numbers are the purest nonsense, having no relation to real magnitudes or the properties of real things, the answers are still right as numbers. The difficulty comes with the interpretation of those numbers back into statements about the real world. If nonsense is put into the mathematical system, nonsense is sure to come out.- W.L. Hays
Do you know that the consensus is godless? They sure seem to enjoy their own religion.
Global warming is simply a conspiracy against the mind. If you hate production and achievement, then you try to stop those things. Environmentalism is the new Communism, out to stifle humanity. Its a death-wish.
Given that we have observed warming on other planets in the Solar System, I am curious how we have scientifically eliminated solar activity as a primary source of GW.
This part just doesn’t pass the ‘common sense test’ to me.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Given that we have observed warming on other planets in the Solar System, I am curious how we have scientifically eliminated solar activity as a primary source of GW.
This part just doesn’t pass the ‘common sense test’ to me.[/quote]
We cannot tax the Sun therefore it is not responsible.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Given that we have observed warming on other planets in the Solar System, I am curious how we have scientifically eliminated solar activity as a primary source of GW.
This part just doesn’t pass the ‘common sense test’ to me.
We cannot tax the Sun therefore it is not responsible.[/quote]
There you’ve nailed it. The UN will pass a tax on countries and anyone who objects is made to look like a planet-murdering maniac who hates baby seals. Environmentalism is the new Communism, the wish to destroy.
Did you know that climate change is cyclical? In the past temps have been known to go up and then down. It astounding really. According to scientists, the earth should never change and is always the same no matter what.
In the '70’s they rattled on about global cooling 'cause the '70’s were inordinately cool. Now we’re warmer so they rattle on about global warming.
Me? I thinks it’s politics as usual. Global warming is just a vehicle to push somebody’s agenda nothing more. When that train runs out of track they’ll try something else.
The politics of fear, you’d thunk after centuries of this crap we’d quit falling for it.
Bet ya, next decade we’ll be back to global cooling. But in the end, centuries from now, it will be discovered that earth’s temperatures have gone up and gone down for years. The past 100 years is to small a sample to make any wise conclusions about something that has been going on for the last 5.4 billion years. I guess people have to make a living.