- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Yeah, yeah, take it to the conspiracy section. The world is moving forward despite the deniers.
I'll tell you what you guys put up a candidate for president denying AGW in 2012 and make all of us happy!
Palin fits the bill!!!
"Sarah Palin | Facebook.
The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”
Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it."
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35323_Palin_Doubles_Down_on_Climate_Denial_Denies_Being_a_Denier
Go Palin!!!!!
In fact the question does not beg to be asked. The weather in one country out of hundreds is not a very compelling case against global warming. There is no debate that global warming has happened. The earth has gotten warmer over the last 100 years. The question is, what causes global warming? Is global warming caused by man, or is it simply natural climatic shifts? That I do not know.
Well, the Earth has been warmer in the past, and long before the industrial revolution, so...
Problem is many of the deniers are former GW scientist.
The debate among the "rational" about man's role in global warming was put to rest in 2005:
"The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.
The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.
The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.
"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.
It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely."
New proof that man has caused global warming - Times Online
Thats great one scientist says it so it is fact.
You want to avoid all the lies and fraud and corruption that is being revealed. This new evidence shows no GW promoters have any credibility.
Look at the winter olympics in vancouver, canada. No snow.
Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely."[/B][/I]
Recall that the zealots will cling to their religion, no matter what.Thats great one scientist says it so it is fact.
You want to avoid all the lies and fraud and corruption that is being revealed. This new evidence shows no GW promoters have any credibility.
Problem is, I checked the article in that link, and found no links to the actual study....Quotes and a
link.
Except when the models don't match, like the last decade.
Not significantly since 1995.Your opinion is the opposite of what the evidence shows, Global warming is happening faster than the models predicted:
Not significantly since 1995.
But, keep quoting the bible.
Funny that you say that as if you have offered anything different.Thanks for your opinion!
Problem is, I checked the article in that link, and found no links to the actual study.
If one model can be tweaked to produce the conclusions desired (as some have claimed certain ACC models have been), then any could be.
Thus all are suspect, and, ergo, cannot be trusted unless you see the study/model yourself and understand it and how it was built.
In short, you have to do that damn study yourself if you want to be sure of the validity.
I tried to check all those links for links to reports, but got lost in one of them which appeared to be a blog linking to other blog articles in the same blog......More quotes and links...
Funny that you say that as if you have offered anything different.
If there has been no significant warming for the last 15 years, how can the actual warming be faster than predicted?
Was no warming predicted from 1995-2010?
Well, of course - your zeal for your faith dictates that you ignore anything that runs contrary to same.I again thank you for your opinion, but I will go with the reports by the experts I have posted above.
I tried to check all those links for links to reports, but got lost in one of them which appeared to be a blog linking to other blog articles in the same blog...
However, most appear to be "X says...Y1, Y2, Y3." But no links to studies/data that proves what "X" is saying to be true.
I did find this, but haven't perused it to check for potential errors.
Well, of course - your zeal for your faith dictates that you ignore anything that runs contrary to same.
Having said that, you can now answer the questions.
The problem I have with the current process for proving ACC is that far to much political influence is involved.I again thank you for your opinion, but I will go with the reports by the experts I have posted above.
I'm sorry - I asked you two questions regarung your opinion:What makes your opinion more valuable than the experts I have posted.
If there has been no significant warming for the last 15 years, how can the actual warming be faster than predicted?
Was no warming predicted from 1995-2010?
The problem I have with the current process for proving ACC is that far to much political influence is involved.
I agree, that is why I have not posted any political opinion.
The opportunities for political power gain seem obvious to me, if you take as a given some of the claims that ACC supporters maintain.
Thus, the fact that politics and ACC seem very closely intertwined leads me to the conclusion that I can’t trust ACC (as I already didn’t trust politics).
The opportunities for ACC science (or pseudo-science, as some claim) to be corrupted by politics is massive.
I suppose that ACC science would somehow have to be divorced from political connections to eliminate that issue I have.
But the thing is, in the current scientific climate, you must have money to do science, and politics/politicians have control over a lot of money they can throw at things. The opportunities for corruption, again, seem obvious to me.
The consensus is among 180 countries around the world. I fail to see how they would have colluded to try to scam, or why. It would be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the planet. It does not seem logical to me.
If we are going to err, I prefer it to be in a direction that does not risk future life on the planet as we know it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?