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.
and so have otheres on BOTH SIDES of the debate, with the same results. one side posts an article, and the other claims it is from a blogger, or the scientist that wrote the article is not a particular kind of scientist, or that they are adjusting or fudging or otherwise cooking the numbers.
in the end it has become a political debate rather than a scientific one, and as such both sides are suspect in this debate.
and do you know what the really sad thing is? we have not yet heard ALL the evidence because much of it wont be peer reviewed because it doesnt fit the political agenda.
So you are unable to discern the difference between a conspiracy blog and an academic Journal?
Clicking on any global warming link is always good for a laugh at the contortions of the AGW cult.
It's good for a laugh at the ignorance and irrationality of climate science deniers. When even science resources meant for the level of an 8 year old show how just how ignorant and irrational science-deniers are, it's even funnier.
When NASA, NOOA, IPCC etc... put out reports and statements that there "has been a pause in net global climate temps" for about 19 years, it means the global temperature is NOT going up.
This was from Feb 2013, two years ago, so the 17 year pause, is now a 19 year pause.
The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend. Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.
Well thanks for posting a tabloid press opinion piece misrepresenting Pachauri and the Met Office and quoting nonsense from conspiracy blogs.
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?
We use NASA, NOOA, the MET Office and even the IPCC, you just refuse to acknowledge them, cuz you are a denier of the any science that even hints at disproving your man-made global warming scam.
No you don't. You use conspiracy blog posts and tabloid press opinion pieces that misrepresent "NASA, NOOA, the MET Office and even the IPCC."
Interesting that you can't discern the difference.
Precisely rather than deliberate and obtuse self-deception. The childish intention to misunderstand the nature of climate change to rationalize harmful behaviors one want to rationalize protecting has really got to stop.
If you want a large human population and a large number of species then you need a warmer climate. One that has no ice.
Our knowledge of this field has been developed almost entirely within the last 100 years, and in fact the vast majority of that has been acquired in the last 30 years.
The warmists have over 70 "scientific" models that they have used to base their theories on. These models predicted rapid increases in temperatures which have not occurred. They were wrong. All of them. And all in the same direction (to the hot side), and by no small margin, either.
I and most people who think like me would be pleased to have them study this until they get it right. Science is a good thing, when it is actually practiced in a scientific manner. But this left driven agenda is clearly drowning in politics. It is not very scientific, despite the number of "scientists" that have associated themselves with it.
In fact, there are no real experts in the field of climate science. One day, hopefully there will be. But as the routine failure of these scientist's predictions shows, nobody associated with this field is qualified to call themselves an expert just yet.
...
In fact, there are no real experts in the field of climate science. One day, hopefully there will be. But as the routine failure of these scientist's predictions shows, nobody associated with this field is qualified to call themselves an expert just yet.
It could just as well be cooling off and we wouldn't know it as they keep fiddling with the numbers.
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.
