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 suggest that you try reading research articles from the science Journals rather than swallow whatever you read in the tabloid press or internet blogs. The lack of knowledge and the political bias against the science on the topic shown in your posts is rather obvious.
BTW, do you seriously think the term 'polar vortex' is new? You don't even know what it is, do you?
Polar vortices have been around for time immemorial, every year, but it's invocation is only the latest fad to hit since every year was an El Nino year after the early 1980s.
You've been reduced to hurling "tabloid" slurs at your debate opponent, rather than attempting to understand the magnitude of the complex system that always humbles your models.
Why don't you, in the words of Phil Jones, use "....Mike's Nature trick..." to "...hide the decline..."?
Polar vortices have been around for time immemorial, every year, but it's invocation is only the latest fad to hit since every year was an El Nino year after the early 1980s.
You've been reduced to hurling "tabloid" slurs at your debate opponent, rather than attempting to understand the magnitude of the complex system that always humbles your models.
Why don't you, in the words of Phil Jones, use "....Mike's Nature trick..." to "...hide the decline..."?
Actually I've been linking to science-based sources discussing the "complex system' while you've been rambling and parroting from the tabloid press and internet blogs - like you did once again in this last post.
If you want to save the earth, your efforts will be better spent training your sights on what your leftist, globalist media really doesn't want you focusing on: among others, escalating ecological catastrophes like GMO and pharma. In fact progressive media is actually encouraging the use of the two.
Actually I've been linking to science-based sources discussing the science while you've been parroting and rambling from the tabloid press and internet blogs - like you did once again in this last post.
Well okay, if you want to call APS, National Snow and Ice Data Center, New York Times, and Reuters "tabloid" and "internet blogs," then there's not much that can be done for you.
Well okay, if you want to call APS, National Snow and Ice Data Center, New York Times, and Reuters "tabloid" and "internet blogs," then there's not much that can be done for you.
You linked to a 2012 article from NSIDC about Antarctic sea ice to try to support your views - but it didn't. You didn't link to the APS. You linked to a 2009 news piece on physicsworld about a small number of scientists (out of 47,000 members at the time),who clearly don't know much about the science involved based on the ill-informed claims they made, who didn't like the APS's evidence-based Statement on anthropogenic climate change.
You linked to a story from the NYT about the earth's magnetic field- and drew your own bizarre conclusions. I didn't notice any link to Reuters, but it's not a science source anyway (although I did provide one link to a Reuters article myself because you clearly don't have access to Journal articles, but I backed it up with another source to the AER)
The rest of your conspiracy content sounded like it was parroted from the tabloid press and anti-science internet blogs - certainly not legitimate science sources.
If you don't care to educate yourself from legitimate science sources on the topic and prefer to swallow politically biased nonsense and conspiracy theories, there's not much that can be done for you.
You linked to a 2012 article from NSIDC about Antarctic sea ice to try to support your views - but it didn't. You didn't link to the APS. You linked to a 2009 news piece on physicsworld about some scientists who didn't like the APS's statement on anthropogenic climate change.
You linked to a story from the NYT about the earth's magnetic field- and drew your own bizarre conclusions. I didn't notice any link to Reuters, but it's not a science source anyway.
The rest of your conspiracy content sounded like it was parroted from the tabloid press and anti-science internet blogs - certainly not legitimate science sources.
If you don't care to educate yourself from legitimate science sources on the topic and prefer to swallow politically biased nonsense and conspiracy theories, there's not much that can be done for you.
Actually the NSIDC piece did support my argument.
And the New York Times article wasn't about magnetic fields at all, it was about the abject paucity of knowledge about the Earth's core--and I linked to it in furtherance of my aforementioning that almost literally nothing is known about that part of our planet (but which is, I'd be willing to bet, whether you want to entertain the idea or not, affected by progressive movement through not only the solar system but also through the galaxy). If you think the linked article is about magnetic fields, then, again, are you intellectually qualified to be speaking on this subject?
Your problem is you think in a limited universe defined by the echo chamber of 'Climate' peers fearful of losing grant monies, and who publish accordingly. CO2 is the serotonin that catalyzes its academic industry.
You're asking that because you've been told by rationalizing so-called 'scientists' that ice extent means a warming Antarctica--even in the face of the fact that the sea ice is forming because heat is being removed from those subsurface regions.
And your models--again--didn't predict that expansion.
You don't want to hear this, but news like that is fed by the kinds of publications of the worshipful you want to insist is validating source material.
My prediction is that February 2015 is the warmest northeastern U.S. on record. Bank on it.
You're asking that because you've been told by rationalizing so-called 'scientists' that ice extent means a warming Antarctica--even in the face of the fact that the sea ice is forming because heat is being removed from those subsurface regions.
"Heat is being removed from those subsurface regions"? LOL! Seriously? "removed" by what? Where did you get this idea and how do you suggest it works?
As for the rest of your post, I don't rely on the Press to accurately report science. I'll go read the research they refer to in the Journals as journalists often get it wrong or misquote scientists.
Last edited by Ceist; 03-22-2015 at 03:14 AM..
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.
