Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It isn't the Silverado's alone, its all the droop snout Kenilworths, vintage VW Microbusses, 50cc mopeds, portable generators, weed whackers, model airplane engines, etc. etc. etc. Petabilllions of man-made BTU's radiating into the atmosphere. Yah... the volcano's are natural, the weed whackers are not. If the biggest issue for many is whether the GW is AGW or not then, there is no issue. It is AGW. Now what? Apparently nothing. So be it, but can we cut the charts and graphs BS? Ranking AGW thread... you mean because C-D hasn't killed it yet? They will now. Sayonara.
Well, the field for the most part already knew they weren't that reliable. Only but a few politically oriented scientists as well as the "administrations" of the field were purporting otherwise. It is sad that in order to bring this issue to a close that we had to actually do extensive research to show something that most understood from the start, but as has been said, this was a heavily political issue and only such would remedy it.
Not only those you listed, but governments, NGO's and anybody else looking for a handout to "research" the hoax that is AGW.
Man-made global warming is pure science fiction... and with money it became one of the biggest scams on the world... unfortunately many companies, governments, and people WANT to be the scammers, its how they make a little extra money... I wish we could deport all of them to Nigeria but alas, we have "legalized" them into society... so when it comes out they were completely "wrong", they won't be guilty of anything... I hate scammers...
So, climate change can't be modeled? How is it NASA makes predictions then? Keep pickin' them cherries!
Seems they can and do make all sorts of predictions....that FAIL to come true.
Name some predictions that have come true. Did the arctic ice cap melt yet?
Why would you put your trust in computer climate models (that have yet to prove their worth and accuracy) when the "predictors" can't get the weather right from one season to the next, year after year?
Seems they can and do make all sorts of predictions....that FAIL to come true.
Name some predictions that have come true. Did the arctic ice cap melt yet?
Why would you put your trust in computer climate models (that have yet to prove their worth and accuracy) when the "predictors" can't get the weather right from one season to the next, year after year?
The problem with climate science and models is that they treat them as if they are some sort of divination tool. Many hard science fields use models, but they use them as a means to test for patterns, project possible outcome scenarios according to the available data they have.
In climate science, models should only be used as a learning tool, a means to test various patterns and see if there is any consistency to the data they have that might elude to another clue. They should not be used as a means to proclaim validity as there is nothing valid in an assumption, which is all a model really is and using an assumption as a basis of fact to make further assumptions isn't science, it is just plain stupid.
Oh, wait, another armchair climatologists' thread!
Thanks for enlightening me. All I had before was all the papers in Science and Nature, and Global Change Biology that seemed to all be slanted the same liberal direction. Too darn many pesky facts. I would have been totally lost without this thread and the article in Yahoo News!
Oh, wait, another armchair climatologists' thread!
Thanks for enlightening me. All I had before was all the papers in Science and Nature, and Global Change Biology that seemed to all be slanted the same liberal direction. Too darn many pesky facts. I would have been totally lost without this thread and the article in Yahoo News!
Funny, I didn't see you posting any research from them in this thread, nor did I see you discussing any of the science in this thread. Were you just here to name drop some journals in hopes of gaining some appeal to authority?
As for these "reputable journals" you mentioned, lets take a look at some of their commentary on the issues.
What I find interesting is that a "scientific" journal, which is designed to review "science" and insure a rigorous process of due diligence and replication of results is taking part in a political attack piece? Don't you?
Isn't science supposed to be about being skeptical? And yet, here we have them attacking skeptics for such.
Seems like a political opinion piece does it not? Why is Science involved in politics?
So please, excuse us if your ever so important name dropping of a journal instead of providing actual research and logical discourse to the issue is taken for nothing more than political rhetoric.
By all means though, if you wish to discuss some of the science, go out there, grab that research and get to discussing. Otherwise, forgive us for not bowing down to your authority through simple submission to blatant fallacies.
I've discussed climate change before. A complete waste of time. The atmospheric physics is unassailable. Go ahead and argue that gravity is a liberal hoax too.
Should I cite some articles on evolution by natural selection?
I am just disgusted to see such ranting by people who are so utterly clueless and reflexively partisan.
Rant off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
