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.
The Manmade Global Whatever kooks have been whining about man's impact on the climate for more than 40 years now.
And in all that time, they have never come up with the slightest proof of a link between man's activities and Global Warming (or is it "cooling" this week?).
Just the same old squalling, smears, and namecalling.
And references to tons of studies, which point to other studies, which refer to yet more studies... but never an actual study that proves man caused anything.
** 40 YEARS **. It's a record of futility that may never be equalled.
It's amazing the fictions right wingers can come up with about science! And pull it all out of their imagination! Talk about creativity!
HAARP is another “alpha-bet” geo-physics term for playing an electro-magnetic, “rainbow” game like “jacks” where the New World Order/Illuminati/high-degreed freemasonry global elite, toss the ball in our skies and then with the dipolar, radio frequency antenna, matrix-ed “jacks” tethered to the ground at a HAARP facility in Alaska and they create SKY MAGIC based on the fact that they are Luciferian mad scientists.
Scientists can't just ignore the applied effects of "outside scientific application" and run their calculations with the assumption that there are no interrelationships.
That makes all of their work non credible, and or quite possibly, significantly skewed.
So, we DO have Government Secrecy Science affecting open science, which could be producing wrong scientific conclusions or premises in the open science areas.
You're doing it again. Global warming is not a daily forecast, it's not whether it's going to rain this afternoon, or there's a freezing 3 days in winter, or not. It's a long-term study of climate.
Doing what? I stated the problem with short term evaluation (ie weather) being used to claim global warming. Now I am certainly not claiming weather systems establish climate trend, but the point I was trying make to you is that those promoting CAGW ARE using many "weather" events as a means of validation. You wonder why people say "Umm... what global warming, we are freezing here this winter", well... it is because we often see "Hot summer confirms global warming!", "Tornado outbreak confirms global warming", etc... You can't have it both ways. You can't use weather to support the position and then turn around and claim anyone else who uses it is wrong. Well, you can... but people are going to think you are an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
Within that long-term study of climate there are certain definite and studied observations. THE MELTING OF THE POLES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE INCREASE OF THE OCEANS, AND YES IT DOES INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CLIMATE CATASTROPHES.
What long term study would that be? Would that be the now 33 year satellite record they use to support their claim which has around 16 years of that same record showing no significant warming? So do tell... how does a 30 year record establish climate trends when of the worlds history of climate? Ever take a look at the cycles of climate? A 30 year evaluation is akin to rolling the dice a billion times and then claiming that 3 rolls can be used to establish a trend.
As for the melting Arctic. You do realize melt has occurred even when the temps were normal or below the record average? There are more factors than simply "A warming world" as you tend to suggest. There are many more things at play here and they haven't been able to nail down what is causing the loss, though there is discussion and it ranges from shifting currents to soot. As for the Antarctic, it isn't losing, its gaining.
If you are talking about ocean increases? Would that be heat? Sorry, you would also be misinformed on that one. Remember the famous Trenberth comment about "missing heat"? Maybe you are talking about sea level... well... no real change there. Its increases are not accelerating and well... that whole argument becomes interesting as there is much contention in how, what, and where you collect your data for such an evaluation.
You know what I've noticed? That right wingnuts are like 4-year-olds. They make decisions that require sophisticated knowledge, based upon what Archie Bunker would think. "Hey yeah, there was a hurricane back in 1919, hahaha, and those dumbaz liberalz think this hurricane proves global warming!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
Without 1 shred of study, without 1 shred of analysis, without even INQUIRING how scientists worldwide (not merely here in the U.S.) KNOW that there is a trend of global warming caused by human beings, right wingers talk as if they knew, while knowing NOTHING. Right wingers care not one iota how scientists worldwide have determined this, they continue to use their Archie Bunker ignorance-based concepts of what they think science is, and that, as they say, is that.
Seriously, cut the poltical BS. You are ranting like a lunatic frothing at the mouth. Stay on the science issues please. First, there are numerous "Peer Reviewed™" papers by skeptics out there that conflict, question, and evaluate other papers on the subject. Have you even bothered to read them or do you simply browse the political sites to load up the wagons? Maybe a intro to science class would do you good? Though, drop it if the scientific method is not the first thing that they teach. Basic concept of Science is verification, validation, replication. If it doesn't have that, it is still some lofty guess or political mumbo jumbo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
I'm sick of it. Sick of the ignorance. Sick of the BS. Sick of discussing things that require knowledge, with individuals who speak as if they were 4 years old and had a brain equivalent to a 4 year old.
Ever consider that maybe you are misinformed? Ever consider that maybe the things you have been told are not "validated", but simply "beliefs" that are based on loosely supported correlations, models that are not validated, and suppositions that are being sold on title?
This issue is a political one. As much as those who worship at the altar of CAGW wish to believe, this is not an issue where people are objecting to obvious evidence. This is an issue where bias and politics have driven policy to the point where science is left in the wake.
Also consider that a great deal of the attitude against CAGW was created by those pushing CAGW. That is, you can't expect to make wild assumptions and then proclaim them as scientific fact, then bully everyone who points out the flaws with all kinds of threats to simply be nice once they find out.
All of this hostility you are experiencing is because people are pretty angry they have been led to believe this issue was established scientifically, that it was validated, that it was a serious issue only to find out that many parties involved were gaining kickbacks and power increases through it.
Though, I doubt you will consider this, you will dismiss my comments like you have many times before as you turned this issue into a political circus of left vs right.
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua I love Al Gore. He brought attention to the global warming issue.
Genuflect when repeating the name of the high priest of the church of global warming.
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.
