U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-26-2015, 07:46 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,192,353 times
Reputation: 4113

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
LOL. Everyone can read it and see for themselves.

Don't cry, bro.
Yes they can. They can also see how you (or the blog post you copied the link from) misrepresented it. Shame you didn't read it yourself.

 
Old 05-26-2015, 08:00 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,089,416 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Security threats aside, look what is happening in Huston....More warming = more evaporation = more rain = destructive floods...
"This is the biggest flood this area of Texas has ever seen," Abbott said.
"It is absolutely massive - the relentless tsunami-type power of this wave of water," Five killed in Texas and Oklahoma floods, Houston on alert | Reuters

Texas and Oklahoma flooding: 4 dead - CNN.com

Flood warnings in place after record rains soak eastern U.S. | Reuters

America Underwater: 20 Images From a Week of Record Rains

Record-Breaking Rain Floods Long Island, New York Region - WSJ
Yes, we know, after telling us for years that weather is not climate, you guys suddenly claim that weather is now the same thing as the climate.
 
Old 05-26-2015, 08:28 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,192,353 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Meanwhile NOAA has reported on the actual observations of the mean average global surface temperature data, which shows us that the earth's climate has not been warming, that temps have been flat for almost twenty years.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. Is CO2 the huge climate warming temperature driver that the global warmists have made it out to be, hell no.

You cannot keep crying wolf about catastrophic global temp increases and not look like a fool, when the average temperature remains flat. All you guys do is point to seasonal weather events, as if a hot day here, or a snowy day there is proof of man-made global warming.
Professor Richard Alley's lecture at the 2009 American Geophysical Union conference:


Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"
 
Old 05-26-2015, 09:04 AM
 
10,499 posts, read 3,958,834 times
Reputation: 5134
CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, that is true. But temperatures have been flat over the last 17 years, which is not what was predicted by the supposedly scientific climate models of the AGW alarmists.

However, what has increased in correlation with rising CO2 levels is plant life, especially in arid areas:
Quote:
Global Warming? No, Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening'

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts.

A team of scientists led by environmental physicist Randall Donohue, a research scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia, analyzed satellite data from 1982 through 2010. The scientists documented a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” that has caused a gradual greening of the Earth, and particularly the Earth’s arid regions, since 1982. The satellite data showed rising carbon dioxide levels caused a remarkable 11 percent increase in foliage in arid regions since 1982, versus what would be the case if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels had remained at 1982 levels.
As far as the scientists and their failed climate prediction models, they need to come clean and admit their errors, then get back to work on improving those models, this time making them consistent with what is actually happening with our climate, rather than making them consistent with the AGW alarmism agenda promoted by the people who fund their government grants and the intolerant academic types who quickly move to ruin the career of any scientist who dares to defy them.
 
Old 05-26-2015, 09:05 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,089,416 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
Professor Richard Alley's lecture at the 2009 American Geophysical Union conference:


Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"
I'm supposed to sit thru that one hour video to figure out what point you are trying to make? Just make your point and don't ask me to take an hour out of my life to imagine what it is.
 
Old 05-26-2015, 09:18 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,089,416 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, that is true. But temperatures have been flat over the last 17 years, which is not what was predicted by the supposedly scientific climate models of the AGW alarmists.

However, what has increased in correlation with rising CO2 levels is plant life, especially in arid areas:
As far as the scientists and their failed climate prediction models, they need to come clean and admit their errors, then get back to work on improving those models, this time making them consistent with what is actually happening with our climate, rather than making them consistent with the AGW alarmism agenda promoted by the people who fund their government grants and the intolerant academic types who quickly move to ruin the career of any scientist who dares to defy them.
You mean like this? If you do not bow at their alter, they will call to decertify you.

Weather Channel Climatologist Wants Global Warming Skeptics Decertified


In an interesting follow-up blog on the reason for this all too common global warming contrarianism within the broadcast meteorology community, journalist Andrew Freedman suggests local TV meteorologist may want to look to the American Meteorological Society for guidance. Freedman goes on to point out that the AMS has in fact, issued a statement on climate change that reads:
"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."
I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.

If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns.



And she goes on...

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming.
 
Old 05-26-2015, 09:21 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,089,416 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, that is true. But temperatures have been flat over the last 17 years, which is not what was predicted by the supposedly scientific climate models of the AGW alarmists.

However, what has increased in correlation with rising CO2 levels is plant life, especially in arid areas:
As far as the scientists and their failed climate prediction models, they need to come clean and admit their errors, then get back to work on improving those models, this time making them consistent with what is actually happening with our climate, rather than making them consistent with the AGW alarmism agenda promoted by the people who fund their government grants and the intolerant academic types who quickly move to ruin the career of any scientist who dares to defy them.
Their climate models are only good for showing what has occurred in the past, they fail when used to predict the future climate.

It's like creating a computer model that can predict the entire 2014 football season and 2015 Super Bowl. Once you know what to predict it's a simple matter to rig a computer to show it. But try and use that same model to predict the football season and Super Bowl for 2017, much less 2027, and it will utterly fail.
 
Old 05-26-2015, 09:23 AM
 
10,499 posts, read 3,958,834 times
Reputation: 5134
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
You mean like this? If you do not bow at their alter, they will call to decertify you.

Weather Channel Climatologist Wants Global Warming Skeptics Decertified


In an interesting follow-up blog on the reason for this all too common global warming contrarianism within the broadcast meteorology community, journalist Andrew Freedman suggests local TV meteorologist may want to look to the American Meteorological Society for guidance. Freedman goes on to point out that the AMS has in fact, issued a statement on climate change that reads:
"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."
I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.

If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns.



And she goes on...

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming.
Exactly like that.

The term "settled science" is at odds with the very essence of what science really is.

Skepticism and debate are not contrary to science. In fact they are the central essence of science. And these supporters of the AGW alarmism hypothesis who are calling for these persecutions and inquisitions of people who disagree with them are in truth not behaving very scientifically at all.
 
Old 05-26-2015, 09:27 AM
 
10,499 posts, read 3,958,834 times
Reputation: 5134
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Their climate models are only good for showing what has occurred in the past, they fail when used to predict the future climate.

It's like creating a computer model that can predict the entire 2014 football season and 2015 Super Bowl. Once you know what to predict it's a simple matter to rig a computer to show it. But try and use that same model to predict the football season and Super Bowl for 2017, much less 2027, and it will utterly fail.
Not so. Their climate prediction models do not consistently and accurately recreate past conditions when known variable are put in them. I think we share a similar perspective on this, but you are giving them credit here where none has been earned or is deserved.
 
Old 05-26-2015, 09:45 AM
Status: ""a mind that understands science"" (set 14 days ago)
 
18,855 posts, read 12,145,326 times
Reputation: 10272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
Even more than that. It was 11,944 papers written by 29, 083 authors and published in 1,980 Journals. Pretty good sample.



THESE WERE ABSTRACTS!

1. Do you understand the difference between a peer reviewed journal article and an abstract?

2. Do you realize that the QUALITY of the journal makes all the difference in the world?

3. Do you realize that science is not a "vote" or a "show of hands"- it is a careful evaluation of phenomenon with proper statistical analysis and no vested interest in the outcome of the study.


Wake up-

"Global Warming" has nothing to do with objective science and is a stunning example of what happens when objective science and the scientific method is disregarded for political reasons.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:07 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top