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.
It's called global warming, not Dallas warming. Global warming does not mean you won't have colder temperatures on our planet anymore.
No, I don't care. Google is your friend. You can do that yourself.
So as George Orwell said in 1984
cold=hot and hot= cold
Since the scientific models which were used to prove man caused global warming have been proven to be manipulated, the scientific facts you believe in are what big brother is telling you to believe in.
the viking landed in Greenland Around 980. At that time Greenland had no ice on it and they established 400 farms to raise crops and animals.
By 1380 the colony had been wiped out bye the little ice age.
there is no doubt that the earths climate is always changing. it will never stay the same. So no argument there. the argument comes in when the Orwellian want to say it is all caused by man. And just like Big Brother in the book 1984 they want to make you so scared of it that you will believe what big brother says.
in the book once you stop fearing big brother and accept all the new speak when you accept cold=hot, then big brother will shoot you in the back of the head.
great book I read way Back in HS in the 70s when all the scientists were showing their facts that we were headed for an ice age.
Big brother is not always right and if you want to believe cold=hot then do so. in the 70s if you wanted to believe we are headed for an ice age then do so.
I am not ready to accept big brothers manipulated data and say GW is man made. I know when you accept the fact cold=hot as big brother wants, they shoot you in th head.
No, I don't care. Google is your friend. You can do that yourself.
*cough* He has, as have a few of us here. His question was not out of seeking you to educate him, rather it was a call to the fact that you are full of it. It is the put up or shut up stance which takes those who ride ignorance and generalized claims and forces them to answer to their claims or be labeled an ignorant braggart who is full of hot air.
You see, the global warmers have been trained and trained well. They feel extreme guilt if they drive a car and if you use a conventional light bulb...oh no...that is the devil. We are going to stop "global warming" on Prius at time.
It is much like the small town of Salem. Town authorities preached their message of control. The fanatical behavior of the town led to scared ignorant people jumping at the site of their own shadows and mischievous individuals using that fear to escape judgement for their own indiscretion.
"No dear, I did not choose to sleep with the neighbors wife, you see... she is a witch and she put me under her spell! If we burn her at the stake, she will confess her treachery!"
"Old man Thomas said the town leaders are full of it and manipulating people, it is because he is in line with the devil that he says these things, we should press him with stones to get him to speak the truth! The town leaders do not lie! They are officials and have a consensus of the truth!"
That's because the posters who deny GW have nothing to back up their opinion except to demonstrate their complete lack of scientific knowledge. They don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate. They don't seem to understand that even the slightest temp change could have a huge impact. They don't seem to understand how the research is done.
Yep, the moment we post facts and discuss the details of the science is the very moment their heads plunge into the sand to avoid seeing it. Then, after it has faded a few pages, they pull their heads out and claim nothing was presented.
Even if you ask them specific questions about their claims to have them explain their position, they skip over it like you never asked.
If they ask a bunch of questions and you respond step by step to every question and issue, they again ignore your response and then act as if you have never presented or contested anything.
Top it all off with ridiculous accusations and teenybopper name calling and it makes you wonder if you are trying to have an discussion with a teenager. /shrug
Yep, the moment we post facts and discuss the details of the science is the very moment their heads plunge into the sand to avoid seeing it. Then, after it has faded a few pages, they pull their heads out and claim nothing was presented.
Even if you ask them specific questions about their claims to have them explain their position, they skip over it like you never asked.
If they ask a bunch of questions and you respond step by step to every question and issue, they again ignore your response and then act as if you have never presented or contested anything.
Top it all off with ridiculous accusations and teenybopper name calling and it makes you wonder if you are trying to have an discussion with a teenager. /shrug
I will sit up and take note when I see a GW denier start a thread with actual scientific facts. "It's snowing" or "It's freezing" do not count.
It's only simple chemistry in a controlled environment, the earth is not a controlled environment. You cannot take one variable and ignore the rest of them and expect to have an accurate conclusion.
I will sit up and take note when I see a GW denier start a thread with actual scientific facts. "It's snowing" or "It's freezing" do not count.
So you have never seen myself, Ferd, thecoalman, and others post specifically about surface temperature record data, tree ring proxies, sea ice extent, reconstruction splices, and the various authors Mann, Briffa, Jones, Santer, etc... concerning their methodology and application of the data?
You haven't seen us discuss any of these issues? Did you not enter any of the CRU email/data threads where we were discussing the relevance of the code files and how they relate to the reconstructions?
You haven't ever seen me post links to surfacestation.org where over 80% of the USHCN stations have been rated and shown to be below acceptable CRN ratings?
You haven't seen the issues we talked about concerning MBH98/99 or the significance of Mann's "hide the decline" application concerning his tree ring data and surface temperature splices? How about Briffa and Yamal?
Is it that you have not seen them or that you choose to ignore them?
There are a few of these flippant topics concerning regional fluctuation, but there have been many dealing directly with the science.
The amusing thing is... You know this as I have provided these specifics to you in the past only to have you ignore them.
Out of sight, out of mind though right? Try to refrain from the urge to plunge your head into the sand this time ok?
It's called global warming, not Dallas warming. Global warming does not mean you won't have colder temperatures on our planet anymore.
No, I don't care. Google is your friend. You can do that yourself.
right google is my (and your) friend. the simple fact is, CO2 makes up too small a part of the green house effect to have the impact the IPCC says it does. and then when you cut that down to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that man has put there in the last 50 years (because that is all anyone is suggesting is the problem) you are left with a simple fact: there isnt enough of it to have the kind of effect that some say it is having.
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.
