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 simply cannot believe that one who says he/she was a consultant for ANY scientific org would post something that is so inane.
The trendline is unmistakable; hence scientific consensus on the reality of the process and that it's cause is Human release of so-called "Greenhouse Gasses".
As to your allegation that anyone in the government who questioned Global Warming was targeted; the inverse was true for the past 8 years, which is why anything coming out of NASA had to be censored by Bush cronies prior to release.
Again, you are simply not credible on this subject based on this post.
An empty claim. You offer no support for that argumentum ad hominem...you don't even refute the ostensible wrongness.
Because you could not.
The trend, right now, is toward cooling. This is why NOAA does not include 2007-8 in the charts they post, even though they've had that data posted for some time.
I've just attached a chart of their own data, and it establishes a trendline with a eleven year moving average, which is broader than theirs (it is for the solar cycle), and therefore will be SLOWER to show the reversal to a cooling trend...and yet you can see it in this trendline.
Now go back and specifically refute the points you are pretending to be so obvious and inane in the post. Or you will be admitting you're all bluff.
By the way, there's no such thing as a scientific consensus. Consensus is not science. In fact, the fathers of the modern scientific method, Karl Popper and Charles Pierce, were adamant about how "consensus" and conventional wisdom are the antithesis of science, which must always be aggressively skeptical of whatever it considers already known.
An empty claim. You offer no support for that argumentum ad hominem...you don't even refute the ostensible wrongness.
Because you could not.
The trend, right now, is toward cooling. This is why NOAA does not include 2007-8 in the charts they post, even though they've had that data posted for some time.
I've just attached a chart of their own data, and it establishes a trendline with a eleven year moving average, which is broader than theirs (it is for the solar cycle), and therefore will be SLOWER to show the reversal to a cooling trend...and yet you can see it in this trendline.
Now go back and specifically refute the points you are pretending to be so obvious and inane in the post. Or you will be admitting you're all bluff.
By the way, there's no such thing as a scientific consensus. Consensus is not science. In fact, the fathers of the modern scientific method, Karl Popper and Charles Pierce, were adamant about how "consensus" and conventional wisdom are the antithesis of science, which must always be aggressively skeptical of whatever it considers already known.
"Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason."
Since the global mean temperature is only 0.4º higher than its average, the local weather report above (which takes only sea temperatures into account, as air temperatures in the same area are not thought to be as unusually high) must be balanced out by unusually cold temperatures, elsewhere.
For example, the record expansion of the ice in the ANT-Arctic:
An empty claim. You offer no support for that argumentum ad hominem...you don't even refute the ostensible wrongness.
Because you could not.
The trend, right now, is toward cooling. This is why NOAA does not include 2007-8 in the charts they post, even though they've had that data posted for some time.
I've just attached a chart of their own data, and it establishes a trendline with a eleven year moving average, which is broader than theirs (it is for the solar cycle), and therefore will be SLOWER to show the reversal to a cooling trend...and yet you can see it in this trendline.
You'd have to be completely illiterate to assert that the graph shows a cooling trend. What a hoot.
"Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason."
Again, no credibility.
What, because some journalist says there's a consensus?
Or because some profiteers with the exact same motivation as tobacco scientists try to make that claim?
You need LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, not argumentum ad verecundiam. Appeal to authority is especially silly when you're citing someone who depends upon a viewpoint for his profit...isn't that what the big government people say about any research funded by the private sector? It is doubly true of government agencies.
You do know what a logical fallacy is, right?
How about Popper and Pierce? Any clue as to who they are? Ever HEAR of the scientific method?
And Alaska had a very warm summer as well. However those facts mean very little to nothing when debating climate change on a global scale.
The cooler temps are being felt all over the globe, you are just unlucky enough to have an El Nino off the west coast, its pushing warm humid air your way.
You'd have to be completely illiterate to assert that the graph shows a cooling trend. What a hoot.
You do know what a trendline, is...right?
Have you taken even a high school statistics course?
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.
