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.
I look forward to your paper showing that it isn't. Which journal is publishing it?
I look forward to seeing your credentials as an IMPARTIAL climate scientist. Otherwise you and I are BOTH doing the same things: taking the information that is available to us and forming opinions on it
Quote:
Who cares what you're sick of? That doesn't affect reality. The situation would be what it is had you never even been born.
Right back 'atcha
Quote:
This is why methods are checked and results independently confirmed. Who's checking that old cue-card reader's methods? Who's independently confirming his claims (other than you guys, who don't count.)?
Sorry Climategate, among other things blew that notion W I D E open.
Quote:
There was no scandal. Right-wingers flipping out is not a scandal, it's right-wingers trying to invent one.
There WAS a scandal and left wing spin, after the fact does not diminish it one but, except for in the minds of other left wing sheep
Quote:
Everyone has big problems. My big problem is the way the American right poisons the public discourse with stupid lies.
While I am not a "Right Winger" by any means, my big problem is the smarmy condescending elitism of the American left.
Quote:
There's no debate. There's what the research indicates, and there's what right-wingers claim with absolutely nothing to back their claims up. Might as well pretend there's a debate between evolutionary biologists and creationists.
That's your whole problem, you see things in black and white. You see it as one side with scientists and liberals working tirelessly to save the planet versus the greedy industrialists and dumb Rush Limbaugh, Fox news watching Tea Baggers.
I see it as BOTH sides are subject to politics, activism, dogma, group think and corruption.
I don't deny man's role in climate change nor the need or the benefit to cleaning up the environment.
What I do deny is the debate as it's largely been framed by the left and was espoused in my original post.
I wonder what blog whatsisface got his graphs from, and why he thinks the sea level in Stockholm represents a global figure. I also wonder why, since his source (Time, Newsweek) have been shown to be wrong, he hasn't retracted his arguments.
I wonder what blog whatsisface got his graphs from, and why he thinks the sea level in Stockholm represents a global figure. I also wonder why, since his source (Time, Newsweek) have been shown to be wrong, he hasn't retracted his arguments.
So a broken link is real science now? (hint:learn how to use internet tools)
I found your nifty little pdf though. Interestingly, it is from the IPCC 2007 AR4.
I am not sure if we should laugh at you for posting the AR4 as evidence or the fact that you posted "evidence" that is 16 years old.
Wait... maybe that is why you guys have no clue there is no warming going on right now? You are reading "evidence" that is several years old?
Hey, do me a favor...
Because you are so smurt and infirmed n stuff. Show us the evidence of your PDF's predictions and then compare it to observed evidence now. Go ahead, edumactae us.
What's alarming, sad & funny all at the same time is these people scoff at science. SCIENCE. The one thing they should put their trust in. They'll never believe anything they don't want to believe no matter how in their face the evidence is. These are pathetic souls, to be sure.
What alarms me is that people hear the word "science" and immediately assume that the scientific method was followed, that it was not subject to politics, activism, ego, group think or dogma and that it was performed under truly an impartial methodology.
That was a whole lot of hot air you got going on there buddy.
I'll keep this short & sweet: we know the climate changes thru the eons. What we also know is that the warming stage is being accelerated by humans. Sorry you can't understand that truly very simple concept. The end.
of which you and science has NOT PROVEN
so says you...oh humans are making it faster....based on what science...the just junk science of liberals wanting to blame man, so they can have a carbon tax
My guess is because the first part are facts, the part you highlighted is assumption and was shown in the previous papers we were discussing.
Stieg et al was shown to be flawed and that is what the NOAA was basing its claims on.
You're kidding. You really have no clue what Steig's 2009 paper was about, do you.
'Steig et al''s WHAT was shown to be flawed? The paper wasn't even about ice shelves melting. It was about a unique way of reconstructing temperature models.
Bizarre. Do you even know the name of the Journal article?
I wonder what blog whatsisface got his graphs from, and why he thinks the sea level in Stockholm represents a global figure. I also wonder why, since his source (Time, Newsweek) have been shown to be wrong, he hasn't retracted his arguments.
wrong...the sealevel is not rising
but some tetonic plates are falling showing a false rise
??? for you...has the diameter of the earth increased????
I look forward to seeing your credentials as an IMPARTIAL climate scientist.
I'm not making any claims. You are. You're claiming the science is wrong. Prove that you're qualified to make this claim, and then prove that it is supported by your research.
Quote:
Otherwise you and I are BOTH doing the same things: taking the information that is available to us and forming opinions on it
Not all opinions are of equal merit.
Quote:
Sorry Climategate, among other things blew that notion W I D E open.
Nope. Denialists claim fraud, but no fraud was found to have occured. You have to learn that just saying something doesn't make it so.
Quote:
There WAS a scandal and left wing spin, after the fact does not diminish it one but, except for in the minds of other left wing sheep
It doesn't diminish it insofar as denialists are still crying fraud, but there is no fraud. No fraud has been found. Rather than dismissing denialists as cranks as should have been done, your claims were investigated and found to have no merit. More than once, if memory serves.
Quote:
While I am not a "Right Winger" by any means, my big problem is the smarmy condescending elitism of the American left.
Oh. I thought you had an issue with the science. I see now that your argument has nothing to do with science.
Quote:
That's your whole problem, you see things in black and white. I see it as BOTH sides are subject to politics, activism, dogma, group think and corruption. I don't deny man's role in climate change nor the need or the benefit to cleaning up the environment.
What I do deny is the debate as it's largely been framed by the left and was espoused in my original post.
The problem is, the right's claims are not supported by the facts. It's as simple as that. You say climatologists were predicting ice ages (as if being wrong then means they're wrong now as well), but it turns out they weren't predicting such a thing. You claim sea level isn't rising, I've shown that it is.
There's nothing dishonest about not pretending James Inhofe or Michelle Bachmann are experts, and there's nothing dishonest about knowing some non-climatologist's blog is not a scientific publication and thus hasn't been subjected to any sort of scientific rigor. On the other hand, there's something very dishonest about baselessly accusing scientists of fraud or being on the take. Pretending Newsweek and Time are scientific publications isn't dishonest, just wrong, but ignoring them when they retract their claims (on which your opinion is based) is dishonest.
And the Inhofe Approach (impossible! God would never let this happen!) is just stupid.
I'll keep this short & sweet: we know the climate changes thru the eons.
Yes, I think everyone agrees that the climate does change and always has and always will.
Quote:
What we also know is that the warming stage is being accelerated by humans. .
No, we don't know that. And in fact, warming has stopped for the past 15 or so years. Meanwhile, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an increasing rate. But that doesn't correlate with warming, does it? Because while CO2 produced by humans has continued to increase at a rapid rate over the past 15 years, it apparently has had no impact on global warming.
So the leeches in their labs are having to rethink their theories (prognostications). They know they have to have answers that support the agenda of increased government control and wealth redistribution. So I'm sure they will have some new forecasts to support their agenda.
I'm not making any claims. You are. You're claiming the science is wrong. Prove that you're qualified to make this claim, and then prove that it is supported by your research.
You're not making any claims? Could have fooled me. You really can't have it both ways. You don't get to demand that I back my claims up with research and then when confronted with your hypocrisy, make the idiotic statement that you weren't making any claims to begin with. That is childish.
Quote:
Not all opinions are of equal merit.
Let me guess, your opinions are more valid because you say so, right?
Quote:
Nope. Denialists claim fraud, but no fraud was found to have occured. You have to learn that just saying something doesn't make it so.
"Saying something doesn't make it so" ?? HA HA HA HA!!! Try looking in the mirror and then re-read the response just above this one.
Quote:
It doesn't diminish it insofar as denialists are still crying fraud, but there is no fraud. No fraud has been found. Rather than dismissing denialists as cranks as should have been done, your claims were investigated and found to have no merit. More than once, if memory serves.
No fraud was found by those who were already predisposed to a certain set of results, much like the "science" in question is conducted. Shocking!
Quote:
Oh. I thought you had an issue with the science. I see now that your argument has nothing to do with science.
No, I was responding to one of your nonsensical points, not defining my entire argument. Try and pay attention.
Quote:
The problem is, the right's claims are not supported by the facts. It's as simple as that. You say climatologists were predicting ice ages (as if being wrong then means they're wrong now as well), but it turns out they weren't predicting such a thing. You claim sea level isn't rising, I've shown that it is.
Except for the inconvenient little truth that I never claimed those things. Whoops!
Quote:
There's nothing dishonest about not pretending James Inhofe or Michelle Bachmann are experts, and there's nothing dishonest about knowing some non-climatologist's blog is not a scientific publication and thus hasn't been subjected to any sort of scientific rigor. On the other hand, there's something very dishonest about baselessly accusing scientists of fraud or being on the take. Pretending Newsweek and Time are scientific publications isn't dishonest, just wrong, but ignoring them when they retract their claims (on which your opinion is based) is dishonest.
There is nothing dishonest in not pretending Al Gore is an expert. There is nothing dishonest about pointing out that even science that is peer reviewed is subject to corruption, politics, ego and dogmatism. There is nothing dishonest about pointing out that just because something is called "science" doesn't automatically mean that the scientific process was rigidly and impartially followed no matter how much your liberal ideology wants to pretend it was. There IS something dishonest about marginalizing, insulting and shunning anyone who dares to question the prevalent dogma and actually think for themselves.
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.
