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.
NASA depends upon tax dollars. NASA needs to please their political masters. They will produce results their masters agree with or risk budget cuts.
National Geograghic depends on donors and subscribers. They will have an agenda that supports their own needs.
Universities once again depend upon Gov grants and private sponsorship. They absolutely will cave in. Professors who work at universities will absolutely allow their personal bias to impact their work.
In short I believe global warming is real and runs in a cycle. I also believe man has exasperated it.
What I don't trust in are flawed models based on less than exact science that seem to need to be modified constantly because of error.
I also don't believe that the USA should foot the bill for changing the world.
Yep, I've heard this same argument presented in about 4 posts on this thread. Through the years I've heard the same thing about cancer, diabetes, and god knows what else. They won't find a cure because it will dry up their funding.
When people are so entrenched in their own ideology that they simply refuse to see or believe the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, how much time should we give them? Is there any point in trying to debate with someone who just wants to shout at you that you’re wrong regardless of the evidence?
I see denialist's trotting out the same mistaken "evidence" time after time...Things like "It's the sun"...... It's "water vapour"..... "We are coming out of an ice age"..."Warming is a good thing" How does one argue against such bull headed ignorance?
"I see denialist's trotting out the same mistaken "evidence" time after time...Things like "It's the sun"...... It's "water vapour"..... "We are coming out of an ice age"..."Warming is a good thing" How does one argue against such bull headed ignorance?"
Very simple: You present FACTS to support your claims. Not "theories", not "computer models", not statements by algore, FACTS ONLY, please.
Many of us are well aware that there have been increases in global temperature measurements. It is the WHY that we don't know. We also don't trust what some of the "experts" say. That lack of trust is justified by the the inaccuracies that have been shown, and the FACT that some temperature measurements were taken in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, or in the exhaust from an air conditioning system!
When ALL of your waterfowl are in perfect linear alignment, and you can prove it with FACTS, please present your findings.
Until then, many of us will remain skeptical.
Does climate change exist? Of course it does.
Can mankind prevent it from happening? I don't know, but I doubt it.
SHOULD mankind prevent it, if we can? Again, I don't know.
SHOULD mankind be doing whatever possible to minimize the impact of climate change on humanity? Well, CERTAINLY!!
WHY, then, is NOTHING being done? Again, I don't know!
Perhaps we should ask Al Gore what needs to be done, and why aren't we doing it!
"I see denialist's trotting out the same mistaken "evidence" time after time...Things like "It's the sun"...... It's "water vapour"..... "We are coming out of an ice age"..."Warming is a good thing" How does one argue against such bull headed ignorance?"
Very simple: You present FACTS to support your claims. Not "theories", not "computer models", not statements by algore, FACTS ONLY, please.
Many of us are well aware that there have been increases in global temperature measurements. It is the WHY that we don't know. We also don't trust what some of the "experts" say. That lack of trust is justified by the the inaccuracies that have been shown, and the FACT that some temperature measurements were taken in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, or in the exhaust from an air conditioning system!
When ALL of your waterfowl are in perfect linear alignment, and you can prove it with FACTS, please present your findings.
Until then, many of us will remain skeptical.
Does climate change exist? Of course it does.
Can mankind prevent it from happening? I don't know, but I doubt it.
SHOULD mankind prevent it, if we can? Again, I don't know.
SHOULD mankind be doing whatever possible to minimize the impact of climate change on humanity? Well, CERTAINLY!!
WHY, then, is NOTHING being done? Again, I don't know!
Perhaps we should ask Al Gore what needs to be done, and why aren't we doing it!
I have been saying the same thing ad nauseum.
They claim we have been monkeying with the earth.
Its a claim, but they want to monkey with the earth to "fix" the problem. A problem of their own fertile imagination.
What? You're not going to bore us with details of your medical history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
It's amazing how some people treat anything from the blog of the nutty conspiracy theorist retired TV weatherman Anthony Watts as "TRUTH".
Is there a reason why you cannot attack or disprove the data?
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit
Yes, lets trust "computer models" created by scientists who have a vested interest in promoting global warming over data collected by impartial scientific instruments...
The Cleveland Plain Dealer addressed the fact that the Global Warming Model was wrong more than a decade ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Umm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Is that supposed to be some kind of 'gotcha!'?
He owns you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
You don't know who John Christy is? He has been going around crying "all the models are consistently and flatly wrong!" for some time now, but strangely.... never seems to be able to show that they are without resorting to dishonest misrepresentation.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer demonstrated that before Christy did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
Evidently, you don't know what a "fact" is.
Neither do you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW
That is well-known as a myth that is consistently debunked! The radius of Earth was accurately measured over 2000 years ago, and Columbus did NOT set out to prove anyone wrong in that regard.
Um, that is not true.
Columbus was tried by the Inquisition. He was permitted to conduct his voyage as part of his attempt to prove his innocence.
The radius of the Earth was not accurately measured 2,000 years ago.
The Earth is a spheroid, not a sphere, and so the radius of the Earth varies at each point along the Equator where longitudinal lines cross, and also varies at each point along any given meridian north or south of the Equator where longitudinal lines cross.
And then the meridional lines all vary in length....which is why the a meter was redefined as so many wave-lengths of the orange-red radiation in Krypton, before being redefined as the distance light travels in a vacuum over a period of time.
In fact that Earth wasn't accurately measured until the 1980s when the space shuttles engage in a series of surface mapping missions, complemented by a series of ground-penetrating radar missions in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Those missions were primarily military in nature to gather data for the BGM-109G -- you know, the Ground-Launched Cruise Missile, and also the air-launched and sea-launched variants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW
Which is analogous to the FACT that the climate is not simply heating up.
Uh, well, you know, you are in the midst of an Inter-Glacial Period.
Please elaborate in detail what global temperatures should be doing during an Inter-Glacial Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW
What's driving it, we may not know yet, but the observations remain.
Common sense says you should first find out what drives the pre-Glacial Period to a Glacial Period to a post-Glacial Period to an Inter-Glacial Period and then back to a pre-Glacial Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Where on earth did you get the weird idea that climate change science "is solely based on computer models rather than anything scientific and measurable"?
Reality.
They have a bad computer model, and all they've done is try to crow-bar data to fit it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Anthony Watts got butt hurt when his own pathetic little 'surface weather stations' hobby volunteer project in the US got proven to be nonsense. His 'results' couldn't make the grade of being published in an academic science Journal, ...
And what was the reason?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
When people are so entrenched in their own ideology that they simply refuse to see or believe the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change,...
Consensus does not rise to the level of fact.
Innocent people are jailed on consensus...that's a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
How does one argue against such bull headed ignorance?
Which part of "Inter-Glacial Period" do you not understand?
How does one argue with people who are so bereft of intelligence as to be unable to grasp the concept of "Inter-Glacial Period?"
Where on earth did you get the weird idea that climate change science "is solely based on computer models rather than anything scientific and measurable"?
Well ummm, maybe because the actual data readings from satellites, weather stations and accredited research organizations contradict the rabid hysteria of global warming/climate fear mongering people...
Whatever..... strays away from the OP which is the United States Secretary of State is sprouting ridiculous amounts of BS and fear...
Quote:
"Think about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't keep us safe if the United States secures its nuclear arsenal while other countries fail to prevent theirs from falling into the hands of terrorists," he said.
"The bottom line is this: it is the same thing with climate change. In a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction."
When people are so entrenched in their own ideology that they simply refuse to see or believe the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, how much time should we give them? Is there any point in trying to debate with someone who just wants to shout at you that you’re wrong regardless of the evidence?
I see denialist's trotting out the same mistaken "evidence" time after time...Things like "It's the sun"...... It's "water vapour"..... "We are coming out of an ice age"..."Warming is a good thing" How does one argue against such bull headed ignorance?
You know nothing of science if you think it is determined by consensus.
NASA has demonstrated that in the last 130 years there has been a net increase in the surface temperature of the planet of 0.51°C. What NASA has not done, or anyone else for that matter, is demonstrate a causal link between human activity and global climate change.
You blame industry for all climate change, but offer no evidence. Even when it has been demonstrated that the surface temperature of the planet was much warmer before industry ever existed, you continue to irrationally blame human activity for all climate change. So who is really ignoring the scientific evidence?
If you think it is "settled science" then you are admitting that it is really a religion and not science, because science is never "settled."
You're posting an article by Anthony Watts, the self promoting weatherman while criticizing scientists as having a vested interest.
If I can summarize his article - even though there is a gradual warming trend of our atmosphere in the last few decades we need to ignore the models since they have not always been accurate. Interesting.
By the way no I don not believe that organizations like NASA, National Geographic and the various research universities have a vested interest.
Then why did Hansen refuse to release his research so that others could verify it? NASA may not have a vested interest but those who have worked for it certainly did.
Then why did Hansen refuse to release his research so that others could verify it? NASA may not have a vested interest but those who have worked for it certainly did.
Because Hanson flat out lied to advance the AGW agenda.
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.
