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.
This is a true rejection of science at its worst. If these people were trustworthy, then why would they not be able to simply use the accurate data and let the results be what they may? Obviously, because that would not support their alarmist agenda.
We've discussed this already.
It was a case of two uneducated buffoons not understanding the concept of raw data processing, as well as ignoring that the conspiracy also involved largest amount of 'fiddling' resulting in a COOLER overall average (adjusting the ocean temperatures).
Last month was the second-warmest January on record globally, trailing only 2007, according to data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Climate records go back to 1880. January second-warmest on record globally
I am wondering how can they actually properly measure what the temperature of the earth as a whole was in any given year?
And even more so how can they tell what is was in 1880?
I am wondering how can they actually properly measure what the temperature of the earth as a whole was in any given year?
And even more so how can they tell what is was in 1880?
How do you warmies reconcile this statement from the UN?
"At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism."
The earth cools down after it heats up and heats up after it cools down and so on. We are not listed on the earth's agenda.
tough to reconcile the eons of climate change, shifting continents with a momentary snapshot of data that lends itself to abstract interpretation and using the convenient sippery slope argument, project the least likely outcome with the lowest probability that might happen in the far distant future, to define we face today. If anyone other than a liberal used that argument they would be labeled a fringe conspiracy tin foil hat idiot.
The biggest clue that Human caused global warming is a trojan horse for a political agenda is the claim that 'the science is settled' and opposing views are suffocated and otherwise fired and discounted. Science cannot live with constant challenge. Anyone who says differnt is pushing a nefarious agenda.
How do you warmies reconcile this statement from the UN?
"At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism."
Another idiotic sensationalist EDITORIAL from a right-wing source.
The actual statement is this:
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,"
Obviously if climate change is going to be curbed or controlled it's going to require a change in the behaviors that are driving emissions responsible. I really don't think that someone admitting this publicly means that some sinister conspiracy is unraveling before our eyes.
Do you honestly think that it's unacceptable that the wealthy nations shouldn't be allowed to destroy the planet for everyone else?
This is the 4th brutal winter since 2009 for much of the US. These long brutal winters use more fossil fuels, especially heating oil.
I don't care if it's 1 degree warmer in Siberia or an ice cap is melting (the weather stations in these regions read higher than actual anyway due to age). The world could use the extra potable water and the US could use the warming. I think we should encourage pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere through tax credits. Ever feel how comfortable and lively it is in a greenhouse?
Not only that...plants take in CO2 for photosynthesis and release O2 therefore better crop yields.
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.
