The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

[sawyerloggingon]

I am jumping into this discussion late, but I am just curious to know...

What is it with people who do not believe global warming is happening?

It's almost as if the conservatives have adopted a stance against global warming as some sort of hallmark of conservatism. What do global warming implications challenge in your political stance??? If the planet is heating up, it's going to affect all of us. What does arguing that it's not happening or condemning people for reaserching it do for you? ... nothing. It baffles me.

I am not a conservative for starters. I look at the facts and make up my own mind and the facts are not there for the AGW theory. It is group think and will pass just like the ice age theory did.

 

[gslack]

The difference is, when scientists "fudge things to make it work" it's all out in the open and other scientists can point to it and say "[you] fudged things to make it work", then present the evidence that things were "fudged" - which is exactly what I said above. Sorry, the conspiracy theory doesn't hold water.

So then you are saying when they hide the decline, exaggerated findings, and make alarmist claims based on incomplete or unproven data, you are saying that hiding it is not really hiding it because it's out in the open? Seriously dude how many ways do you define hiding the decline? LOL, if you hide something from your peers in your research, you are not out in the open about it otherwise you aren't hiding anything.

 

[gslack]

I am jumping into this discussion late, but I am just curious to know...

What is it with people who do not believe global warming is happening?

It's almost as if the conservatives have adopted a stance against global warming as some sort of hallmark of conservatism. What do global warming implications challenge in your political stance??? If the planet is heating up, it's going to affect all of us. What does arguing that it's not happening or condemning people for reaserching it do for you? ... nothing. It baffles me.

Read some of the posts.. It seems this theory's contentions can't be proven, yet you are under the assumption people who choose to doubt it are somehow incomprehensible? Okay then you prove the existence of back radiation and settle it..

 

[gslack]

There are tons of people in this very thread who think its all a big joke...

No its no joke, it's scientific corruption and that's very serious. They can't prove the basic tenants of their theory,and maintain some pretense it all settled. It isn't settled, they can't even duplicate the theories main claims in the real world.

That people are making the global warming implications and research out to be some kind of delusion by people with foil hats.

No I make them out to be con-men running a scam on the people to get legislation and new forms of taxation that the people would never agree to otherwise. I thought I was clear on that..

I got an idea, why not post to me rather than about me, and then we can have genuine debate on this.. My posts are quite a few, they are all marked with my name and avatar, pick one you dispute and prove I'm wrong..

 

[iguanaman]

Good post.

Like I said earlier its not that mankind doesnt contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In the case of CO 2 though its very difficult to make a case for the root and branch reconstructions of our economies based on our minimal understanding of climate interactions of this trace gas. Its most probably hundredths or more likely thousands of a degree we are talking about here. In point of fact it would be far easier to establish a positive impact on the biosphere in terms of increased plant growth from the extra CO 2 in my view.

Some are using this agenda as a conduit to facilitate the imposition of thier particular worldview which has corrupted almost all logical objectivity scientific or otherwise sadly

So in your mind all the years of scientists studying data from every source imaginable and plugging it into super computers to analyze was wasted effort because we cannot disrupt societies use of every ounce of fossil fuel no matter what the outcome may be? Isn't that why AGW is called the "Inconvenient Truth"? Yes it is.

 

[gslack]

I never claimed I accepted AGW so it's not up to me to provide proof for it.


I told you you were confused, again, and again, ... and again. Your problem is that I also don't Deny the possibility, which is what ticks you off. I don't agree with you so I must be with "THEM". And you wonder why I often direct your rants to the Conspiracy Theory section.

Dude you have been supporting the claim this entire time.. Seriously you just spent pages trying to prove it. If you don't accept it why are you trying to prove it?

Funny you calling anyone confused here. Pages of your support of the theory now you claim you never said you supported it....

 

[flogger]

So in your mind all the years of scientists studying data from every source imaginable and plugging it into super computers to analyze was wasted effort because we cannot disrupt societies use of every ounce of fossil fuel no matter what the outcome may be? Isn't that why AGW is called the "Inconvenient Truth"? Yes it is.

Well the onus on is on those scientists and that data plugged into those 'super computers' climate activists so revere to prove thier hypothesis by getting the right results with them then isnt it ?

Like I've said before given thier hit rate to date I'm glad they are not my bookie ! :lol:

 

[iguanaman]

Well the onus on is on those scientists and that data plugged into those 'super computers' climate activists so revere to prove thier hypothesis by getting the right results with them then isnt it ?

Like I've said before given thier hit rate to date I'm glad they are not my bookie ! :lol:

Shooting the messenger is so adult. Scientist don't have a "hit rate" they only have data and calculations. That data and the calculations tell the story, it is not a horse race.
It is ridiculous to think they are all lying and the fossil fuel interests are all telling the truth. It is just plain DUMB.

 

[flogger]

Shooting the messenger is so adult

Eh ? Which messenger did I shoot ?

Scientist don't have a "hit rate" they only have data and calculations. That data and the calculations tell the story,

Computers are simply calculators and those dont work if most of the major values inputted into them are unknown. Here is why they fail.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

It is ridiculous to think they are all lying

Or simply wrong in light of observations ?

and the fossil fuel interests are all telling the truth

Why would I care what they say ?

. It is just plain DUMB

Not given the performance of the AGW hypothesis in the real world to date it isnt :roll:

 

[MoSurveyor]

So then you are saying when they hide the decline, exaggerated findings, and make alarmist claims based on incomplete or unproven data, you are saying that hiding it is not really hiding it because it's out in the open? Seriously dude how many ways do you define hiding the decline? LOL, if you hide something from your peers in your research, you are not out in the open about it otherwise you aren't hiding anything.

Dude you have been supporting the claim this entire time.. Seriously you just spent pages trying to prove it. If you don't accept it why are you trying to prove it?

Funny you calling anyone confused here. Pages of your support of the theory now you claim you never said you supported it....

Honestly, if I had realized the last post was yours I wouldn't have responded at all. Regardless of what I post you will do your best to misinterpret it, so don't expect further replies from me.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Regardless of what I post you will do your best to misinterpret it, so don't expect further replies from me. Honestly, if I had realized the last post was yours I wouldn't have responded at all.

gslack, I agree with Mo here. In my dealings with you, you are intellectually dishonest in your replies. You restate what someone says in a way that changes the meaning. Everyone see it. I don't know what you think you are gaining.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Sorry I thought you were actually here to logically debate the issue with an open mind. My mistake. We have enough crusading preachers here already thanks all the same

Moving on ...... :roll:

Are you not open minded enough to consider that human beings have affected the climate?

If not, tell me why.

 

[Knowledge=power]

I am not a conservative for starters. I look at the facts and make up my own mind and the facts are not there for the AGW theory. It is group think and will pass just like the ice age theory did.

Possibly. But I don't see the need for opposition at all. Whether it is proven to be occuring or not, how is the researching of it affecting you at all? Do you just not like hearing people talk about it? What has it changed in your life?

 

[Knowledge=power]

Read some of the posts.. It seems this theory's contentions can't be proven, yet you are under the assumption people who choose to doubt it are somehow incomprehensible? Okay then you prove the existence of back radiation and settle it..

Like I asked sawyer, what is this research doing to affect your life in any way?

 

[Knowledge=power]

No its no joke, it's scientific corruption and that's very serious. They can't prove the basic tenants of their theory,and maintain some pretense it all settled. It isn't settled, they can't even duplicate the theories main claims in the real world.

So what if this AGW talk has people start recycling more, using alternative energy sources, buying hybrid or all electric cars, etc... those are all good things!

No I make them out to be con-men running a scam on the people to get legislation and new forms of taxation that the people would never agree to otherwise. I thought I was clear on that..

I got an idea, why not post to me rather than about me, and then we can have genuine debate on this.. My posts are quite a few, they are all marked with my name and avatar, pick one you dispute and prove I'm wrong..

It's laughable that you are putting this 'hidden-agenda conspiracy to tax people' garbage on people who are trying to look out for you and the rest of the world.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Possibly. But I don't see the need for opposition at all. Whether it is proven to be occuring or not, how is the researching of it affecting you at all? Do you just not like hearing people talk about it? What has it changed in your life?

Researching it is fine, calling it settled science is not.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Researching it is fine, calling it settled science is not.

Even if it is called settled science, how is that affecting you at all?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Even if it is called settled science, how is that affecting you at all?

Because those calling it settled science are doing there best to change the way I live by doing there utmost to make it cost more for me to fill up my truck with diesel for starters.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Because those calling it settled science are doing there best to change the way I live by doing there utmost to make it cost more for me to fill up my truck with diesel for starters.

Sawyer, diesel prices are going to continue to get higher and higher, and the supply of diesel is going to run out - if not for you, then for future generations - it is a certainty. Fossil fuels are dirty, inefficient, and not renewable. We all have to change the way we live. Wouldn't you enjoy driving a truck which you did not have to spend $100+ to fill up? It's possible.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Sawyer, diesel prices are going to continue to get higher and higher, and the supply of diesel is going to run out - if not for you, then for future generations - it is a certainty. Fossil fuels are dirty, inefficient, and not renewable. We all have to change the way we live. Wouldn't you enjoy driving a truck which you did not have to spend $100+ to fill up? It's possible.

Fuel in general is artificially expensive because warmers are doing everything they can to make it that way in order to "save the planet". You asked how warmer policy effected me and I told you.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Fuel in general is artificially expensive because warmers are doing everything they can to make it that way in order to "save the planet". You asked how warmer policy effected me and I told you.

You put "save the planet" in quotations as if it's a joke to manage natural resources...

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You put "save the planet" in quotations as if it's a joke to manage natural resources...

You are changing the subject now. The subject is how people who believe AGW is settled science is effecting me.

 

[Knowledge=power]

You are changing the subject now. The subject is how people who believe AGW is settled science is effecting me.

Ok sawyer well I hope you realize that diesel prices are less important on the larger scale of things.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Ok sawyer well I hope you realize that diesel prices are less important on the larger scale of things.

Everything you buy was made with the use of fossil fuel and delivered to you by trucks burning fossil fuel and high fuel prices drag down our economy. You asked how the AGW theory being implemented into energy policy effected me and now you know. My Cat 518 grapple skidder burns 40 gallons of diesel a day and artificially high diesel prices effect my bottom line.

 

[flogger]

Are you not open minded enough to consider that human beings have affected the climate?

If not, tell me why.

Lack of any verifiable evidence to that effect.