Global Warming Didn't Exist In The US Until 1979! (Congress, poll, death)

[odanny]

Originally Posted by Nomander

And by chance do you have any knowledge of where Gore got his data from? You do realize that Hansen was one of his advisers and also that Mann's work which produced the nifty hockey stick splice are one of the major contributors to the theory? You do realize that a large portion of the research you might quote is based on in one way or another their work?

Hansen is a pioneer in climate change research. The reason that climate change deniers target him is that he was sounding the alarm on climate change in the early 80's when others ignored it, therefore this makes him extremely credible. I'm not sure why the rightwing so detests Al Gore, but I'm pretty sure the rightwing echo chamber, led by none other than Rush Limbaugh, can give you that answer

Originally Posted by Nomander

Ever heard of "garbage in, garbage out"?

Yea, its using FOX News as your source of information

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by odanny

Hansen is a pioneer in climate change research. The reason that climate change deniers target him is that he was sounding the alarm on climate change in the early 80's when others ignored it, therefore this makes him extremely credible. I'm not sure why the rightwing so detests Al Gore, but I'm pretty sure the rightwing echo chamber, led by none other than Rush Limbaugh, can give you that answer

A pioneer you say? Hansen has been gunning for his AGW theory since the 70's. Apparently you missed the memo on his poorly reconstructed surface temperature findings? You know, the one where he claimed 1998 was the warmest year on record? He was proven wrong by his liberal interpretations of the surface records through creative reconstruction. Apparently they don't teach math in climate science, nor due diligence. His sloppy work has given climate science a bad name, but then you wouldn't know anything about that because you don't read about the actual science, do you? The fact that you are unaware of this only shows you do not.

Originally Posted by odanny

Yea, its using FOX News as your source of information

I don't watch Fox, or TV for that matter. It is for the mentally lame. I do however read on topics and am particularly interested in the research when it actually provides the data itself rather than simplistic summaries meant for those who can barely achieve wiping their own rear without video directions stepped out to the tune of a toddlers song.

You might understand this if you had taken any time to search my history of posts on this subject (or even read the previous links I posted in this thread). Instead, you base your knowledge on assumptions which is exactly why you have no clue concerning this topic and exactly why you look foolish responding as you did.

I leave you to your partisan bickering and assumptive conclusions. It actually fits in nicely with the way that your climate science icons apply their research.

[odanny]

Originally Posted by Nomander

A pioneer you say? Hansen has been gunning for his AGW theory since the 70's. Apparently you missed the memo on his poorly reconstructed surface temperature findings? You know, the one where he claimed 1998 was the warmest year on record? He was proven wrong by his liberal interpretations of the surface records through creative reconstruction. Apparently they don't teach math in climate science, nor due diligence. His sloppy work has given climate science a bad name, but then you wouldn't know anything about that because you don't read about the actual science, do you? The fact that you are unaware of this only shows you do not.

.

Your argument is lacking substance. Your apparent "knowledge" is nothing more than subterfuge to confuse and misdirect the apparent target(s) of your right wing invective, masked in pseudo science.

You are an anomaly amongst the scientific community, and when you realize why, then the truth will set you free.

Science trumps politics in this argument, so you neednt even refer to politics.

But you do. Ever wonder why?

But hey, I'll pretend the glaciers all across the planet are not melting if it makes you happy.

(okay, back to reality now)

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by odanny

Your argument is lacking substance. Your apparent "knowledge" is nothing more than subterfuge to confuse and misdirect the apparent target(s) of your right wing invective, masked in pseudo science.

You are an anomaly amongst the scientific community, and when you realize why, then the truth will set you free.

Science trumps politics in this argument, so you neednt even refer to politics.

But you do. Ever wonder why?

But hey, I'll pretend the glaciers all across the planet are not melting if it makes you happy.

(okay, back to reality now)

So what you are saying is that you aren't going to comment on any of the issues I brought up directly, but rather you will continue to make generalized claims of superiority while never actually dealing with any of the facts of the issue?

Run along, you are way out of your league.

[odanny]

Originally Posted by Nomander

So what you are saying is that you aren't going to comment on any of the issues I brought up directly, but rather you will continue to make generalized claims of superiority while never actually dealing with any of the facts of the issue?

Run along, you are way out of your league.

Actually, I agree with the scientific community, it is your argument that is the anomaly, not mine. I have no case to make, and it is you who needs to run along.

I know that over 600 billion tons of formerly sequestered fossil fuels can have an impact on temperature, and everything I've seen (and felt) has convinced me that scientific research is accurate.

Have a good 'un.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Watts Up With That?: 1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA


You are arguing a case that has already been proven incorrect.

I've seen the condensers before. I didn't want to go into all that, not because it isn't valid, but rather because I wanted to keep those with shorter attention spans focused on the fact that temperatures have remained essentially unchanged in 100 years. But I appreciate your input. Maybe after enough people get off the Kool-Aid we can begin to explain why and how the data has been wrongly collected.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

We sure have a large number of conspiracy theorists on this forum, don't we? They believe that everything is a hoax. It's a strange mentality that seems to be quite prevalent on the right these days.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Could you provide the list of all climatologists and a direct acknowledgment from them concerning AGW directly so we can run the numbers and check your claim?

97% would seem quite high, having said that it's the context that matters. I believe where the source of these high numbers often cited is because it's groups of people they are citing. For example you might have 20 scientists in the GW camp, 15 scientists firmly on the other side and lastly 65 scientists on the fence leaning one way or the other. The group is now declared a consensus....

If you read any of the articles some of the most vocal skeptics produce what you'll find is they don't deny global warming. The argument is how much effect human activity is having.

[Bluefly]

Thecoalman hit it on the head. For all this layman back and forth on this thread, there is absolutely no argument in the scientific community that the climate is significantly changing and that it is heading in a consistently warmer direction with greater swings between hot and cold, as well as more intense hurricanes (not necessarily MORE hurricanes, as some use to discredit it).

So, that just leaves the question of how much of a role humans play.

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Let me start off with a quote:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Benjamin Disraeli


Could you provide the list of all climatologists and a direct acknowledgment from them concerning AGW directly so we can run the numbers and check your claim?

I mean, I have seen some claims of such, but often much like the quote states, they are fabrications and manipulations used to support a specific bias.

It's so cute how some people approach a discussion like this. They accuse an individual of lying and offer nothing to substantiate their claim beyond a meaningless personal attack.

Here's a link to the survey. Do with it what you will with it. I'm sure you'll find a way to discredit it:


97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans



And, we can also throw this chart in for good measure:

http://weather.about.com/od/imagegal...ming-Graph.htm

or this one:

http://weather.about.com/od/imagegal...Are-Rising.htm


So, there's no debate whether it's rising. That's a given. It would be quite serendipitous if our industrial revolution, the exponential increase in greenhouse gases, and this warming trend were unrelated ... but I guess there's a chance, given the fluxuation of temperatures over the course of history (though, so far as I know, there have never been increases this significant over this short of a period, save for when volcanoes covered wide swaths after explosions).

Bottom line: why don't we just stop polluting? Why don't we use our American ingenuity to create the technologies and jobs to end this dependence on fossil fuels. The pollution we see locally is toxic. The old smokestacks that simply got the toxins above the town so they could blow to the next is still how we think of pollution. So long as a wind comes along to take it away, who cares? It's in places where there is no wind - such as LA - that people grow concerned. Same thing globally. There's no wind to take all this pollution away.

Why don't we just use the free markets to get rid of it once and for all?