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.
If you don't trust anything from blogs that aren't alarmist, why should anyone accept a cite of yours from blogs that are alarmist? You would have us live in our own little bubbles I guess, where we only read cites that agree with us?
That's okay, old friend, I did read your blog. But the author is simple wrong, ( or at least the authors down past the link.) You can read Curry's own words and see she does not deny AGW. She supports it. It's only a question of how much to her. She believes, as apparently do many of the very authors of the IPCC, that the climate is very complex and we don't yet have a good way of accounting for all the intervening variables. So she is skeptical of the certainty the alarmist express.
It's clear that alarmist will attack and discredit any scientist that's not an alarmist, and then use those attacks to demonstrate that the scientist is not really a scientist. Read down the page, and it's really outrageous. To call Curry a "science denier" just because she hold what may or may not be a minority opinion? The effort to quash any scientific dissent is unprecedented. That is what is anti-science.
this is why i quit being and AGW believer, and became a skeptic. the climate is a complex system, and in truth we are not getting the full truth from either side of the debate, and until we do we cant make a proper determination of just what is causing the climate to constantly change, so i will go on what the past tells us, rather than what the alarmists tell us.
Your 'independent research' is Roy Spencer's website and Singer's Folly the farcical NIPCC? Yes, that's intellectually honest. Not. As for your lies about climate scientists "denying any contributing factors to climate change except CO2" -that statement alone is enough to show me you have done no 'independent research" of the published literature.
There is also a big difference between someone holding religious beliefs, and a scientist who states their religious beliefs about the earth's climate.
And if you think what GnT writes is in any way 'rational', you are beyond help.
Listen up, and listen good. I don't blindly accept the mainstream dogma about AGW no matter how many "scientists" claim to agree that their speculations are proven facts. And this is based on the mountain of evidence of fraud that exists across the board ... covering many subjects .. not just AGW.
Experience has shown that movements such as this, where massive amounts of money are spent, and also made available for "further research" ... there tends to be an underlying agenda that is not discussed. And with regard to AGW, the most likely agenda is obvious on the surface, given the extreme amount of control over so many aspects of daily life relative to the stated goal of reducing CO2. That fact alone demands extreme scrutiny, and AGW does not stand up very well to that scrutiny. This is an agenda steeped in the desire of a technocracy who wants to establish an unprecedented power grab, which through carbon regulation embeds it's claws into every aspect of daily life, from commercial activity, to private behaviors.
This cannot be allowed based on speculations and up proven theories, because the consequences are too far ranging, politically and economically.
What do we really know? We know that the earth's climate is always in a state of dynamic change. It is the very nature of climate to change, because it is cyclic in nature ... always moving in one direction or the opposite ... always in one of two states ... exiting a glacial period (warming) or entering the next glacial period (cooling).
All of the dire predictions of the calamity of warming notwithstanding, common bloody sense would DEMAND that if there was a choice between an extended period of warming, and an extended period of cooling that marked the beginning of our entry into another glacial period, only a Moron would prefer the cooling, given the absolute consequences of a glaciation event, which would usher in devestating loss of life, in near extinction like terms.
This inane idea that skeptics are being funded by oil companies is just another manifestation of the complete absence of you alls grasp of how the real world works. Carbon regulation, contrary to your false perception is not some undesirable thing for oil companies. This is a cat and mouse game .. a good cop bad cop psychological misdirection. Crushing the coal industry under the guise of CO2 regulation would be of huge benefit to big oil, in that coal fired electric generation would naturally move toward diesel generators, and without competition, watch what would happen to oil prices then.
This is the same type of reverse psychology used with ObamaCare ... oh yes, we're going to stop those mean old insurance companies from denying those with preexisting medical conditions ... make insurance available to all ... stop the abuse and waste ... get "affordable" healthcare to the people!!! This is the nature of these Orwellian schemes like the "Affordable Healthcare Act" ... sounds good ... what's not to like about making healthcare more affordable to more people, and stop these insurance companies from denying people coverage. Big problem here was ... the insurance companies wrote the damnef legislation, and once the bill passed, and the SC deemed it constitutional, the stocks of these insurance companies rose significantly!! Their stocks didn't rise because this bill benefitted the people!!!! You were had! And it seems no matter how many times these childish games are played, a significant portion of the sheep never learn, and fall for these schemes again and again.
And it's not like this is some complex code to break ... Obama openly said ... "my energy policies will necessarily cause electricity costs to skyrocket" ,,, right out of his own mouth!! And what response did he get from the feloniously ignorant masses on the left? Standing ovations!!! Yay!!! We love skyrocketing electric bills! It's a great deal to pay through the nose for electricity!!!!
And you people claim to be the "smart side" ? You are indeed the dumbest, most mentally I'll people ever to breath oxygen and exhale CO2 on this green earth.
The rest of us should follow your lead? Only if we too lose our bloody capacity to think rationally!
CAGW.....I had to look that up....CAGW, for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming," is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific literature on climate.
That is true, but arguing of semantics doesn't change the truth. The fact remains, many of the claims made by AGW proponents are alarmist, completely false, and even debunked by science. Period.
Therefore, AGW is likely true (the hypothesis that humans have warmed the planet), but the CAGW (the hypothesis that the results will be catastrophic) is most likely false.
"Obama openly said ... "my energy policies will necessarily cause electricity costs to skyrocket" ,,, right out of his own mouth!! And what response did he get from the feloniously ignorant masses on the left? Standing ovations!!! Yay!!! We love skyrocketing electric bills! It's a great deal to pay through the nose for electricity!!!!
And you people claim to be the "smart side" ? You are indeed the dumbest, most mentally I'll people ever to breath oxygen and exhale CO2 on this green earth."
Well you hit the home run ball here. We've been telling em it for a while they they don't listen. Of course the ones who don't listen don't care they can afford it. The ones who can't..............I guess freeze in the winter or burn up in the summer they don't care. But by gosh they are doing their part. By telling others what to do. The same folks they claim to be helping out. Just unbelievable.
The "chosen" few will be warm while the rest live in huts is the ultimate goal.................well actually the ultimate goal is millions die. Something like this happened in Russia. I guess they learned about it but liberals never did.
That is true, but arguing of semantics doesn't change the truth. The fact remains, many of the claims made by AGW proponents are alarmist, completely false, and even debunked by science. Period.
Therefore, AGW is likely true (the hypothesis that humans have warmed the planet), but the CAGW (the hypothesis that the results will be catastrophic) is most likely false.
I mostly agree....I don't think a solid link can be made between AGW and most weather events that have been occurring recently, with the exception of the results of Arctic warming. A more truthful statement is that it is possible that there are links.
I mostly agree....I don't think a solid link can be made between AGW and most weather events that have been occurring recently, with the exception of the results of Arctic warming. A more truthful statement is that it is possible that there are links.
It's a game both sides play.
A cold winter in one city is used as evidence against AGW, while an individual hurricane is used as evidence for it.
A cold winter in one city is used as evidence against AGW, while an individual hurricane is used as evidence for it.
Both are just anecdotal.
It is worse than that!
A cold winter across the United States, with record cold temperatures and record snowfall, is meaningless, but a hot summer in Australia proves global warming.
I don't understand that...
It is worse than that!
A cold winter across the United States, with record cold temperatures and record snowfall, is meaningless, but a hot summer in Australia proves global warming.
I don't understand that...
there again, no one does except the alarmists. they pick and choose what they accept or not. a severe cold snap in the US doesnt match their agenda, thus they claim its only weather. on the other hand a heat wave in australia, or even the US does match their agenda, so they crow about it. when skeptics use weather to denounce AGW warmings, the alarmists claim its only weather and doesnt count, but when alarmists use weather to bolster their arguments, they claim it is warming, and therefore does count.
and the difference is that skeptics use the weather in a facetious manner, as opposed to alarmists using it as evidence. for instance in the winter a skeptic would say we had six inches of global warming today, and the alarmist would say thats weather.
It is worse than that!
A cold winter across the United States, with record cold temperatures and record snowfall, is meaningless, but a hot summer in Australia proves global warming.
I don't understand that...
That is not what that response is about...It is to highlight the fact that weather, neither hot or cold is not evidence for or against long term temperature change.
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.
