Global warming is so out of control that it's getting cold!
Where's Sci Fi Fan when you need him?!!?!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/ (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/)
And those readings taken were stations being effected by islanding temperatures, meaning it's actually getting colder than the report alludes to.
Yes boiz and goilz, the planet is cooling, it's in a natural cycle with the sun, and no, it has absolutely nothing to do with man.
Quote from: taxed on July 28, 2014, 04:27:28 AM
Global warming is so out of control that it's getting cold!
Where's Sci Fi Fan when you need him?!!?!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/ (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/)
Sci Fi Fan is most likely running around still trying to find that Upstate forum he helped to shut down with his nonsense. Seems he can't get away with his stuff on a normal forum. :ohmy:
Well when the ice age arrives, all that water locked up in ice will cause the sea level to drop. I propose that we move to those territories exposed - which used to be 300 hundred feet under water - and not allow the AGW types to come with us. They can stay in their original homes, waiting for that global warming they were always warning us about. Of course the mile, or two, of ice over their heads might make living difficult; but hey, they're so much smarter than the rest of us, they'll figure out a way/sarc. :rolleyes:
BTW, I forgot to mention that this is the coolest AUGUST we've had in many years. We start off today with temps in the mid nineties, followed by mild eighties the rest of this week. I don't know when temps have ever been this low in August. It is usually sultry and temps somewhere in the mid nineties to over 100 deg. I'm not complaining though, it is a welcome reprieve.
Just courious...is the US part of the entire planet or a stand-alone location?
If it is part of the overall planet then what would always be of greater importance is what is happening to the planet, which we share, like it or not, with the other 7 billion people and the residents of nature.
Given that reality, here is the 2013 report:
2013 was the fifth warmest year on record.
USA Today, 9/17/13.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 28, 2014, 08:16:42 AM
Just courious...is the US part of the entire planet or a stand-alone location?
If it is part of the overall planet then what would always be of greater importance is what is happening to the planet, which we share, like it or not, with the other 7 billion people and the residents of nature.
Given that reality, here is the 2013 report:
2013 was the fifth warmest year on record.
USA Today, 9/17/13.
The original article posted by Taxed is from the summer months of 2014.
Please try to keep up. Thanx-Key
And, BTW, the comment posted by Solar does take into account the rest of the planet.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 28, 2014, 08:16:42 AM
Just courious...is the US part of the entire planet or a stand-alone location?
If it is part of the overall planet then what would always be of greater importance is what is happening to the planet, which we share, like it or not, with the other 7 billion people and the residents of nature.
Given that reality, here is the 2013 report:
2013 was the fifth warmest year on record.
USA Today, 9/17/13.
Link please.
Globe swelters through 5th-warmest summer on record
The world had its fifth-warmest summer since records began in 1880, the National Climatic Data Center reported Tuesday.
Specifically, the temperature over global land and ocean surfaces tied with 2009 as the fifth-highest on record at 61.22 degrees, which is 1.12 degree above the 20th-century average of 60.1 degrees.
Unusual heat was experienced worldwide:
• South Korea had its warmest summer since records began in 1973.
• Austria had its sixth-warmest June-August since records began in 1767.
• In the U.S., Alaska had its 2nd-warmest summer since records began in 1918.
• The average maximum temperature across Australia during June-August was 2.56 degrees Fahrenheit above average, the 2nd-highest since records began in 1910.
Climatologists call "summer" the three hottest months, which are June, July and August in the Northern Hemisphere. (Those three months are the winter months in the Southern Hemisphere.) The climate center is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
One of the world's few cooler-than-average spots included the central and southeastern U.S.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/17/global-summer-climate-report/2828215/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/17/global-summer-climate-report/2828215/)
And, adding to the thread comment on this summer:
U.S. enjoys coolest summer since 2009
After a series of sweltering summers, the USA caught a small break this year with its "coolest" summer since 2009, the National Climatic Data Center reported Thursday.
However, the nation as a whole was still 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average and experienced its 15th-warmest summer on record. Eight states in the West and four states in the Northeast had one of their 10 hottest summers on record, the climate center noted.
Alaska had its second-hottest summer in the state's 96-year record. The only other summer that was warmer was in 2004.http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/12/cool-summer-climate-report/2805667/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/12/cool-summer-climate-report/2805667/)
Climate scientists define summer as the three warmest months of June, July and August.
Just thought you would prefer all the pertinent facts.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 28, 2014, 08:47:02 AM
Globe swelters through 5th-warmest summer on record
The world had its fifth-warmest summer since records began in 1880, the National Climatic Data Center reported Tuesday.
Specifically, the temperature over global land and ocean surfaces tied with 2009 as the fifth-highest on record at 61.22 degrees, which is 1.12 degree above the 20th-century average of 60.1 degrees.
Unusual heat was experienced worldwide:
• South Korea had its warmest summer since records began in 1973.
• Austria had its sixth-warmest June-August since records began in 1767.
• In the U.S., Alaska had its 2nd-warmest summer since records began in 1918.
• The average maximum temperature across Australia during June-August was 2.56 degrees Fahrenheit above average, the 2nd-highest since records began in 1910.
Climatologists call "summer" the three hottest months, which are June, July and August in the Northern Hemisphere. (Those three months are the winter months in the Southern Hemisphere.) The climate center is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
One of the world's few cooler-than-average spots included the central and southeastern U.S.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/17/global-summer-climate-report/2828215/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/17/global-summer-climate-report/2828215/)
And, adding to the thread comment on this summer:
U.S. enjoys coolest summer since 2009
After a series of sweltering summers, the USA caught a small break this year with its "coolest" summer since 2009, the National Climatic Data Center reported Thursday.
However, the nation as a whole was still 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average and experienced its 15th-warmest summer on record. Eight states in the West and four states in the Northeast had one of their 10 hottest summers on record, the climate center noted.
Alaska had its second-hottest summer in the state's 96-year record. The only other summer that was warmer was in 2004.http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/12/cool-summer-climate-report/2805667/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/12/cool-summer-climate-report/2805667/)
Climate scientists define summer as the three warmest months of June, July and August.
Just thought you would prefer all the pertinent facts.
USA Today didn't link to the data. Again, can you please link to the report?
Quote from: taxed on July 28, 2014, 08:53:38 AM
USA Today didn't link to the data. Again, can you please link to the report?
Link to opinion? :lol:
USA Today rag is notorious for this kind of bull shit.
Taxed,
The "link" is the articles author, Doyle Rice.
If you have doubts google his claims. Should only take a minute.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 28, 2014, 08:59:53 AM
Taxed,
The "link" is the articles author, Doyle Rice.
If you have doubts google his claims. Should only take a minute.
No it isn't.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 28, 2014, 08:16:42 AM
Just courious...is the US part of the entire planet or a stand-alone location?
If it is part of the overall planet then what would always be of greater importance is what is happening to the planet, which we share, like it or not, with the other 7 billion people and the residents of nature.
Given that reality, here is the 2013 report:
2013 was the fifth warmest year on record.
USA Today, 9/17/13.
Of course this is proof positive that all the climate "models" are wrong. If any of them was right, 2013 would have been the warmest year on record, not the fifth warmest. Just sayin.
Quote from: taxed on July 28, 2014, 08:53:38 AM
USA Today didn't link to the data. Again, can you please link to the report?
Quote5th-warmest summer on record
So
QuoteJune, July and August
is what summer is all about. What next 2 months or just one. :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on July 28, 2014, 09:05:14 AM
So is what summer is all about. What next 2 months or just one. :lol:
So, it wasn't even the hottest? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on July 28, 2014, 08:57:02 AM
Link to opinion? :lol:
USA Today rag is notorious for this kind of bull shit.
Now he's posting articles and saying the link is there, when it's not. The only link in the article is to an article to how the US was the coolest since 2009 (a 2013 article).
Yep. We got us another troll.
Quote from: taxed on July 28, 2014, 09:28:58 AM
Now he's posting articles and saying the link is there, when it's not. The only link in the article is to an article to how the US was the coolest since 2009 (a 2013 article).
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on July 28, 2014, 12:41:27 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh dear, it's worse than I thought. I re-read his post. He says the link is the author.
The link is the author. USA Today employs an environmental guy and he writes submissions that get published. If you want the sources for the stats ask him, not me.
If you think the stats inaccurate, maybe so, do the research, i am not you servant.
If you don't like USA Today fine, I could care less what your reading preference is.
And frankly I don't really care about your opinion of climate change, it just doesn't matter. You see it is not a subject that I will ever master, and neither will you. We can only learn, collect more info, and read what experts write.
Or we can be fools and claim we "get it" cause we are really, really smart.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 28, 2014, 03:26:33 PM
The link is the author. USA Today employs an environmental guy and he writes submissions that get published. If you want the sources for the stats ask him, not me.
No. Link to the data. If you post idiocy, then you must defend it. If you can't find or locate the data, just say so.
Quote
If you think the stats inaccurate, maybe so, do the research, i am not you servant.
The one rule of this forum is you provide evidence for your posts. Just posting some author isn't facts or data.
Quote
If you don't like USA Today fine, I could care less what your reading preference is.
I could care less if you care less. I don't care if Mars Today posts an article or opinion piece; it needs to be sourced so we can dissect and analyze it.
Quote
And frankly I don't really care about your opinion of climate change, it just doesn't matter. You see it is not a subject that I will ever master, and neither will you. We can only learn, collect more info, and read what experts write.
Or we can be fools and claim we "get it" cause we are really, really smart.
Is there a global warming crisis?
Quote from: taxed on July 28, 2014, 04:27:28 AM
Global warming is so out of control that it's getting cold!
Where's Sci Fi Fan when you need him?!!?!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/ (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/)
This is hilarious.
1. Why the fuck do your links always go to blogs, think tanks, news journals, or anything but a peer reviewed scientific publication?
2. If you're going to appeal to a random internet blogger, at least appeal to one that bothers to cite his sources.
3. I love how he cherry picks "percentage of 90 degree days" (with a truncated Y axis, for good show) and not something a little more logical, like, say, "average temperature". :rolleyes:
4. Do you understand the difference between temperature and heat?
5. The kicker is, you obviously think "global warming" means "'murica warming".
One way to tell how much a guy knows about a subject is to look at the sources he uses. You've never cited any sort of actual scientific source; you've made it clear that you've gotten all of your information on the issue from random bloggers and think tanks. Of course, an actual scientific paper would have equations and big words, and you can't be bothered to read any of that.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 09:32:12 PM
This is hilarious.
1. Why the fuck do your links always go to blogs, think tanks, news journals, or anything but a peer reviewed scientific publication?
Because these blogs, think tanks, news journals, and anything else report the real data, highlight the attempts to change data, analyze such data, and make fun of you people for your attempts and just being wrong every time nature proves you to be idiots. You hold academia in high regard, not me.
Quote
2. If you're going to appeal to a random internet blogger, at least appeal to one that bothers to cite his sources.
He always cites his sources. On this article, he shows a chart with HCN data. Did they not teach you how to compile data in college? If you don't take his word for it, take a leap and do something you have probably never done -- do your own research! The data is available. It's how we correct liberal lies, like getting the real unemployment numbers, etc. When the source data is available, you can check it out for yourself! If you need encouragement, I'm here.
Quote
3. I love how he cherry picks "percentage of 90 degree days" (with a truncated Y axis, for good show) and not something a little more logical, like, say, "average temperature". :rolleyes:
I know you missed the whole "critical thinking" part of life while in college, but it's really quite easy. There are less 90 degree days through July 23rd. When there is more, it means it's a hotter summer. When there is less 90 degree days, it's a cooler summer. For example, if it was 60 degrees for 6 days, and 80 degrees for 1 day, we would say it was a cool week. Is that confusing? Just because he didn't make an average temp chart doesn't mean he doesn't want to or couldn't. It just means he didn't.
Quote
4. Do you understand the difference between temperature and heat?
Most of us taught ourselves that back in the elementary school.
Quote
5. The kicker is, you obviously think "global warming" means "'murica warming".
Global cooling is global cooling. We really should start to call it global cooling, since it looks like we're in a cooling phase now.
Quote
One way to tell how much a guy knows about a subject is to look at the sources he uses. You've never cited any sort of actual scientific source; you've made it clear that you've gotten all of your information on the issue from random bloggers and think tanks. Of course, an actual scientific paper would have equations and big words, and you can't be bothered to read any of that.
Yet, my sources are right, yours are wrong, and its getting cooler. Hmm, go figure.
If there was any basis to this climate change BS, you should be able to show that every year since the start of the Industrial Revolution is warmer than the one before. After all the number of industrialized nations has grown; Japan for example leaped directly from the medieval times directly into the industrial age. So 2013 shouldn't be the 5th warmest, it should be the warmest up to that date, and 2014 should be warmer still.
Ah, the global warming debate. For years I was a die-hard GW person, probably one of the most die hard you ever came across. What happened? College, and I took several environmental classes and many science classes, from chemistry, biology, geology, and physics. What did I learn, science is only as exact as the data and theories its using. Also learned that some of the biggest egos, and most fragile egos, are not in politics, or Hollywood, but scientists.
The Earth's climate is always changing, history tells us that, and always question the data and theories. Never take it for granted that either are 100% accurate.
It's been a hell of a hot summer here in Norway, but that doesn't prove anything since it had to have been the same degrees or hotter 1000 years ago as well.
My only question is why are you global warming and environmentalists continuing to use cars, pets, aviation and fossil based electricity etc if it's destroying the planet?!
Quote from: ConservativeMe on July 29, 2014, 10:48:16 AM
Ah, the global warming debate. For years I was a die-hard GW person, probably one of the most die hard you ever came across. What happened? College, and I took several environmental classes and many science classes, from chemistry, biology, geology, and physics. What did I learn, science is only as exact as the data and theories its using. Also learned that some of the biggest egos, and most fragile egos, are not in politics, or Hollywood, but scientists.
The Earth's climate is always changing, history tells us that, and always question the data and theories. Never take it for granted that either are 100% accurate.
Why did it take you so long?
Quote from: taxed on July 29, 2014, 06:53:59 AM
I know you missed the whole "critical thinking" part of life while in college, but it's really quite easy. There are less 90 degree days through July 23rd. When there is more, it means it's a hotter summer. When there is less 90 degree days, it's a cooler summer. For example, if it was 60 degrees for 6 days, and 80 degrees for 1 day, we would say it was a cool week. Is that confusing?
Actually there is one confusing thing about measuring how warm the summer is in that manner. Let's compare two weeks for example:
The temperatures in week 1 are 87, 87, 85, 87, 88, 89, and 89 degrees.
Week 2 has temps of 72, 75, 75, 80, 82, 88, and 91.
Week two has more days over 90, so would you consider that a warmer week? Careful! The answer may fool you.
One way we can tell is to take the average of these temperatures.
Week 1 has an average temp of 87.4.
Week 2 has an average temp of only 80.4.
So as you can see, even though more days over 90 occurred in week 2, it was overall a cooler week.
Do you see how counting days above 90 isn't a very useful way to measure temperature?
Quote from: Hector on July 29, 2014, 01:53:48 PM
Actually there is one confusing thing about measuring how warm the summer is in that manner. Let's compare two weeks for example:
The temperatures in week 1 are 87, 87, 85, 87, 88, 89, and 89 degrees.
Week 2 has temps of 72, 75, 75, 80, 82, 88, and 91.
Week two has more days over 90, so would you consider that a warmer week? Careful! The answer may fool you.
Week 1 would be more hot than week 2. Week 2 is cooler than week 1. The reason is because week 1 has more hot days than week 2.
Quote
One way we can tell is to take the average of these temperatures.
Week 1 has an average temp of 87.4.
Week 2 has an average temp of only 80.4.
So as you can see, even though more days over 90 occurred in week 2, it was overall a cooler week.
Correct, week 1 was more hot on average.
Quote
Do you see how counting days above 90 isn't a very useful way to measure temperature?
If there are more hot days than cold days, that means it's hotter. If there are more cold days than hot days, that means it's colder. If there are 20 days at 90 degrees one summer, and 2 the next summer, then the second summer was probably a cooler summer.
Quote from: taxed on July 29, 2014, 11:39:41 AM
Why did it take you so long?
I grew up in liberal California. Though I do recycle, conserve water, want my car to have a high MPG, and try to leave the planet cleaner (who doesn't want clean air and water).
Quote from: ConservativeMe on July 29, 2014, 02:24:32 PM
I grew up in liberal California.
That's no excuse.
Quote
Though I do recycle, conserve water, want my car to have a high MPG, and try to leave the planet cleaner (who doesn't want clean air and water).
That doesn't make you a liberal. It actually makes you closer to a conservative. Look at any gathering between liberals, and a tea party gathering. Guess which one is covered in litter and filth. Conservatives want to protect the environment, because we have respect for mother nature.
Quote from: ConservativeMe on July 29, 2014, 02:24:32 PM
I grew up in liberal California. Though I do recycle, conserve water, want my car to have a high MPG, and try to leave the planet cleaner (who doesn't want clean air and water).
I'm native Californian of 60 years, and I protect the environment, not because it's the politically correct thing to do, but because it's the CONSERVE-ative thing to do.
It's sad that you think clean water and air are somehow symbiotic with Dim-witts, when in fact, it took both parties to agree on policy.
Problem is, the left is full of shit where the environment is concerned. EG, Ozone hole, DDT, AGW, Co2, and the list is 1000 times fold of politically driven lies designed to grow govt and steal Liberty.
So get that idea out of your head, leftists do not own a healthy planet, they own higher taxes and lost liberty associated with their lies and Bull Shit!
Capitalistic countries are the cleanest (because they're prosperous enough to clean up after themselves. Socialist/Communist countries are the filthiest because they can't afford the luxury of a clean environment.
On a personal level, Conservative rallies are known for leaving their environment CLEANER than they found it. Socialist do-gooders leave their environment far worse than they found it.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsupermurder.com%2Fmedia-bin%2FSUPERMURDER-RALLY-PIX2.png&hash=c9a8c407340ec276f45baee23145b4a5d19aa17c)
Quote from: carlb on July 29, 2014, 04:02:35 PM
Capitalistic countries are the cleanest (because they're prosperous enough to clean up after themselves. Socialist/Communist countries are the filthiest because they can't afford the luxury of a clean environment.
On a personal level, Conservative rallies are known for leaving their environment CLEANER than they found it. Socialist do-gooders leave their environment far worse than they found it.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: keyboarder on July 28, 2014, 06:35:41 AM
Sci Fi Fan is most likely running around still trying to find that Upstate forum he helped to shut down with his nonsense. Seems he can't get away with his stuff on a normal forum. :ohmy:
Do tell. I like a good internet-based drama.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 28, 2014, 03:26:33 PM
The link is the author. USA Today employs an environmental guy and he writes submissions that get published. If you want the sources for the stats ask him, not me.
If you think the stats inaccurate, maybe so, do the research, i am not you servant.
If you don't like USA Today fine, I could care less what your reading preference is.
And frankly I don't really care about your opinion of climate change, it just doesn't matter. You see it is not a subject that I will ever master, and neither will you. We can only learn, collect more info, and read what experts write.
Or we can be fools and claim we "get it" cause we are really, really smart.
Or, we can not be assholes and make claims and insinuations that have no proof. Just sayin'.......
Quote from: drjim893 on July 28, 2014, 08:47:02 AM
Globe swelters through 5th-warmest summer on record
The world had its fifth-warmest summer since records began in 1880, the National Climatic Data Center reported Tuesday.
Specifically, the temperature over global land and ocean surfaces tied with 2009 as the fifth-highest on record at 61.22 degrees, which is 1.12 degree above the 20th-century average of 60.1 degrees.
Unusual heat was experienced worldwide:
• South Korea had its warmest summer since records began in 1973.
• Austria had its sixth-warmest June-August since records began in 1767.
• In the U.S., Alaska had its 2nd-warmest summer since records began in 1918.
• The average maximum temperature across Australia during June-August was 2.56 degrees Fahrenheit above average, the 2nd-highest since records began in 1910.
Climatologists call "summer" the three hottest months, which are June, July and August in the Northern Hemisphere. (Those three months are the winter months in the Southern Hemisphere.) The climate center is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
One of the world's few cooler-than-average spots included the central and southeastern U.S.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/17/global-summer-climate-report/2828215/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/17/global-summer-climate-report/2828215/)
And, adding to the thread comment on this summer:
U.S. enjoys coolest summer since 2009
After a series of sweltering summers, the USA caught a small break this year with its "coolest" summer since 2009, the National Climatic Data Center reported Thursday.
However, the nation as a whole was still 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average and experienced its 15th-warmest summer on record. Eight states in the West and four states in the Northeast had one of their 10 hottest summers on record, the climate center noted.
Alaska had its second-hottest summer in the state's 96-year record. The only other summer that was warmer was in 2004.http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/12/cool-summer-climate-report/2805667/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/12/cool-summer-climate-report/2805667/)
Climate scientists define summer as the three warmest months of June, July and August.
Just thought you would prefer all the pertinent facts.
lol, yeah, do tell us the "facts" and methods of the data collection, vetting, and analysis....of 1767 and 1880.
May as well tell us how much hotter it is, than it was in the year 9.
Andy
So let's see if we can save some time?can you dissect a climate projection analysis? Can you cite the components measured to establish the model profile?
Nope, not a prayer.
So USA Today is probably well over your level of managing complexity.
Now here is how it works...if USA Today mistakenly cites data its millions of readers note the errors and the paper publishes a correction. It is a concept called research journalism...probably another topic beyond your background.
You see you don't get your own facts. You can deny facts, claim you know their deepest meanings when you probably can't spell the terms, let along grasp the concepts.
But simply saying "Naw, I don't believe any source but one that reports what I want to read" is the stuff that makes knowledge opaque to some.
I do not know if we can curb the changing climate, nor do you...that is the truth.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 29, 2014, 08:46:09 PM
Andy
So let's see if we can save some time?can you dissect a climate projection analysis? Can you cite the components measured to establish the model profile?
Nope, not a prayer.
So USA Today is probably well over your level of managing complexity.
Now here is how it works...if USA Today mistakenly cites data its millions of readers note the errors and the paper publishes a correction. It is a concept called research journalism...probably another topic beyond your background.
You see you don't get your own facts. You can deny facts, claim you know their deepest meanings when you probably can't spell the terms, let along grasp the concepts.
But simply saying "Naw, I don't believe any source but one that reports what I want to read" is the stuff that makes knowledge opaque to some.
I do not know if we can curb the changing climate, nor do you...that is the truth.
The quote function is your friend...
Quote from: carlb on July 29, 2014, 04:02:35 PM
Capitalistic countries are the cleanest (because they're prosperous enough to clean up after themselves. Socialist/Communist countries are the filthiest because they can't afford the luxury of a clean environment.
It's not that they don't have the money or even that cleaning environment is a luxury
(because it really is a necessity) it's because they have no incentive whatsoever to do so. When the government owns everything why should the billionaire bureaucrat waste money on cleaning systems if it's only hurts his profit margin? It's not like the peons which the pollution effects can petition the government when the bureaucrat owning the company is part of the government.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 29, 2014, 08:46:09 PM
I do not know if we can curb the changing climate, nor do you...that is the truth.
That's not true, please show me some data of this weather control device you're claiming might exist, maybe in the future mankind can control the climate enough to make it stagnant, but for now and since before time immemorial the climate has always been changing, even if we stopped all industry tomorrow it would at best slow down climate change but more likely it would have no significant effect at all.
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 30, 2014, 03:13:35 AM
That's not true, please show me some data of this weather control device you're claiming might exist, maybe in the future mankind can control the climate enough to make it stagnant, but for now and since before time immemorial the climate has always been changing, even if we stopped all industry tomorrow it would at best slow down climate change but more likely it would have no significant effect at all.
If man were to stop the climate from changing, he'd kill the planet.
That's the literal idiocy behind the notion it's even possible. Because the only way to effect change, is to remove the sun, the "ONLY driver of our climate".
Solar,
I do not know how to use the quote function. Would appreciate help, and thanks.
Sun is not the sole driver of climate. If I understand the science we do know about the topic.
When the early steel mills developed along the low lying Ohio River, their pollution hung in the air, making dark days and pollutant filled air to breathe. When industry used our rivers and streams to dump toxic waste fishing died and our drinking water was in jeopardy. When factories closed and left behind land on which nothing would grow we had to clean up brownfields.
Today, with ocean temperatures rising some coral is in danger as are some species of water life.
Cutting down the Amazon rain forest is effecting more than the local region.
My point is, humans can and do have an effect upon the planet, and if we have an effect we can alter that effect by changing our behaviors.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 29, 2014, 08:46:09 PM
Andy
So let's see if we can save some time?can you dissect a climate projection analysis?
What does a climate projection have to do with anything, aside from proving they consistently fail?
Quote
Can you cite the components measured to establish the model profile?
It's like proving Santa can fly because we are able to calculate the weight of the presents. Please, try to be smarter. Please.
Quote
Nope, not a prayer.
We're not under water, the ice caps are thicker than ever, and polar bears are still around. It is amazing how you people have been wrong for years, yet talk like you've been correct the whole time. That makes you not very smart.
Quote
So USA Today is probably well over your level of managing complexity.
This is a fact based forum. Next time you post something ridiculous again, you need to source the data.
Quote
Now here is how it works...
We already know how it works. You parrot fake science that has been wrong for years and ignore facts. I, taxed, have been right for years, while the academics you think are smart have been wrong, over and over again. I'm stupid, yet seem to have perfect accuracy on my predictions.
Quote
if USA Today mistakenly cites data its millions of readers note the errors and the paper publishes a correction. It is a concept called research journalism...probably another topic beyond your background.
Journalists cite and publish their sources. That seems to be beyond your comprehension.
Quote
You see you don't get your own facts. You can deny facts, claim you know their deepest meanings when you probably can't spell the terms, let along grasp the concepts.
Facts and data prove you wrong every time.
Quote
But simply saying "Naw, I don't believe any source but one that reports what I want to read" is the stuff that makes knowledge opaque to some.
Your idiocy can always be dismantled with common sense. You people always fail.
Quote
I do not know if we can curb the changing climate, nor do you...that is the truth.
I do know. The answer is no, we can't.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 30, 2014, 08:27:57 AM
Solar,
I do not know how to use the quote function. Would appreciate help, and thanks.
Click the quote button. It's so easy, an AGW believer can do it.
Quote
Sun is not the sole driver of climate.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
To all you who wonder why we let libs post, here ya go. They never, ever disappoint.
Quote
If I understand the science we do know about the topic.
Quick question, what happens if all the sea ice in all the world melts?
Quote
When the early steel mills developed along the low lying Ohio River, their pollution hung in the air, making dark days and pollutant filled air to breathe. When industry used our rivers and streams to dump toxic waste fishing died and our drinking water was in jeopardy. When factories closed and left behind land on which nothing would grow we had to clean up brownfields.
What does pollution have to do with the man made global warming scam?
Quote
Today, with ocean temperatures rising some coral is in danger as are some species of water life.
Cutting down the Amazon rain forest is effecting more than the local region.
My point is, humans can and do have an effect upon the planet, and if we have an effect we can alter that effect by changing our behaviors.
You have no point. You are sounding insane.
Quote from: drjim893 on July 30, 2014, 08:27:57 AM
Solar,
I do not know how to use the quote function. Would appreciate help, and thanks.
Sun is not the sole driver of climate. If I understand the science we do know about the topic.
When the early steel mills developed along the low lying Ohio River, their pollution hung in the air, making dark days and pollutant filled air to breathe. When industry used our rivers and streams to dump toxic waste fishing died and our drinking water was in jeopardy. When factories closed and left behind land on which nothing would grow we had to clean up brownfields.
Today, with ocean temperatures rising some coral is in danger as are some species of water life.
Cutting down the Amazon rain forest is effecting more than the local region.
My point is, humans can and do have an effect upon the planet, and if we have an effect we can alter that effect by changing our behaviors.
Tell me, what kind of climate would the earth have if there was no sun?
Here we just this past week, set an all-time., new record for the low temp.
Said that it was actually colder, that night, than any other night on record.
That the record which was broken, had been around since back when they'd first started keeping such records in this state.
But watch out, drive that car and you'll be making it oh so hot and terrible for us all. :ttoung:
Since summer temperatures have been cooler, how is that affecting last winter's snowfall; because that is the precursor of an ice age.
Quote from: Solar on July 30, 2014, 08:52:19 AM
Tell me, what kind of climate would the earth have if there was no sun?
Solar, liberals don't like for one to ask that question. Because that one, lone, question destroys their entire anthro-climate change theory.
Throws it right into the circular file, with the rest of the junk science projects these liberals have latched onto in history.
(Like Eugenics but I digress)
Solar in answer:
Answer: There would be no climate, there would be no atmosphere to have a climate.
Since our parent star is in part the reason why there even IS a planet here we call Earth.
And since if we had no star, and thus no radiation or way to even create a gas.
There would be no atmosphere.
All the water on Earth would freeze and either be on the ground as snow, or on the ground as an ice sheet many hundreds of MILES and MILES and MILES thick.
Which has actually happened on Earth in it's geologic past.
Only when that one happened we did have a sun.
No we didn't have any men around to help warm things up either.
Without our parent star though...well lets just say Ut oh....
FWIW though solar the global warming nuts are correct, in about oh another 7-10 billion years from now, the sun will swell into whats called a Red Giant, at that point the Earth's orbit will be roughly like that of Mercury today.
Closer in fact as when Sol does this, the Earth will actually be within the upper atmosphere of Sol.
So in the end Global warming will destroy the planet.
It's just that no one, absolutely no one alive today, will know about it when it does happen.
Since the radiation and solar wind from Sol, will rip the Earth's atmosphere from our planet,long, long, long, long before Sol grows into that. ;)
So ok I say fine to the libs, we'll worry about the global warming when it actually starts to happen.
In oh about another six billion or so years.
Until that time however, the liberals just need to shut the hell up.
Mind their own business, stay out of mine and that of everyone else.
And worry about something that really and truly matters to us all.
Like whether we will have a nation to live in, in the next decades to come.
Like whether or not we the American people are going to live as free and libertine individuals, or serfs in bondage to the state.
Quote from: daidalos on July 30, 2014, 04:03:20 PM
And worry about something that really and truly matters to us all.
Like whether we will have a nation to live in, in the next decades to come.
Like whether or not we the American people are going to live as free and libertine individuals, or serfs in bondage to the state.
And that my friend, is the objective behind the AGW scam.
To steal our ability to produce.
QuoteSun is not the sole driver of climate.
Um... :ohmy:
Reminds me of this article:
http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/ (http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/)
:scared:
Quote from: ConservativeMe on July 30, 2014, 05:12:06 PM
Um... :ohmy:
Reminds me of this article:
http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/ (http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/)
:scared:
Oh wow.
Quote from: ConservativeMe on July 30, 2014, 05:12:06 PM
Um... :ohmy:
Reminds me of this article:
http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/ (http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/)
:scared:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That's freakin hilarious!
Quote from: taxed on July 30, 2014, 05:14:51 PM
Oh wow.
I just skimmed the article. Honestly, I thought it was from the Onion when he posted it.
That's just sad, and to think, this guy is a physicist.
We literally could cover the entire planet with panels, every sq inch, and still maybe capture one, one trillionth of it's energy.
Quote from: ConservativeMe on July 30, 2014, 05:12:06 PM
Um... :ohmy:
Reminds me of this article:
http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/ (http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/)
:scared:
Swell. Anthopogenic global warming is just small potatoes now. We're on to solar cooling, from a distance of 93,000,000 miles.
Crackpots come in the most amazing variety.
Quote from: Solar on July 30, 2014, 05:47:03 PM
I just skimmed the article. Honestly, I thought it was from the Onion when he posted it.
That's just sad, and to think, this guy is a physicist.
We literally could cover the entire planet with panels, every sq inch, and still maybe capture one, one trillionth of it's energy.
The Sci Fi Fans of the world buy into this stuff with no thinking. It's unreal.
Quote from: taxed on July 30, 2014, 05:59:10 PM
The Sci Fi Fans of the world buy into this stuff with no thinking. It's unreal.
Where is he, this purported scientists needs him? :laugh:
Quote from: Solar on July 30, 2014, 06:00:43 PM
Where is he, this purported scientists needs him? :laugh:
His professor is giving him some more fake science to parrot.
Quote from: taxed on July 30, 2014, 06:01:58 PM
His professor is giving him some more fake science to parrot.
No, I think his professor is busy with another project at the moment. :biggrin:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi668.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv43%2Fkeith666-81%2FRedneck_RoadsideAutoRepair.jpg&hash=20d0bedf9a1dfafe3764261d0c0b0006f3234f5e)
Quote from: Solar on July 30, 2014, 06:32:40 PM
No, I think his professor is busy with another project at the moment. :biggrin:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on July 30, 2014, 05:47:03 PM
I just skimmed the article. Honestly, I thought it was from the Onion when he posted it.
That's just sad, and to think, this guy is a physicist.
We literally could cover the entire planet with panels, every sq inch, and still maybe capture one, one trillionth of it's energy.
Allow me to expose this guy for what he is, a freakin lib.
This should put things into perspective regarding my point that earth has absolutely no effect on the sun, and never ever will.
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rayfowler.org%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsize_of_earth_3.jpg&f=1)
Quote from: Solar on July 30, 2014, 07:25:38 PM
Allow me to expose this guy for what he is, a freakin lib.
This should put things into perspective regarding my point that earth has absolutely no effect on the sun, and never ever will.
You made me think, I wonder if libs think the Sun is as big as a little ball, since it seems small in the sky. This whole time, I've been under the assumption that libs know the Sun is really, really big. After Alison Grimes comment the other day, Hank Johnson with Guam tipping over, Sci Fi Fan believing anything a professor craps out, and on and on, maybe they really don't know. I feel like I made a breakthrough here.
Quote from: taxed on July 30, 2014, 07:29:50 PM
You made me think, I wonder if libs think the Sun is as big as a little ball, since it seems small in the sky. This whole time, I've been under the assumption that libs know the Sun is really, really big. After Alison Grimes comment the other day, Hank Johnson with Guam tipping over, Sci Fi Fan believing anything a professor craps out, and on and on, maybe they really don't know. I feel like I made a breakthrough here.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Ya know, you may be onto something here. Based on the fact that libs swallowed this piece of crap willingly, one has to assume they don't realize the magnitude of effect the sun plays on our teeny tiny planet.
poor Algore, just can't catch a break. Seems to happen to him every time!
QuoteDENVER — The Climate Reality Project brought its "I'm Too Hot" trucks and offers of free ice cream to this week's Environmental Protection Agency hearings on power-plant emissions, but the climate wasn't cooperating.
The plan was to tout the EPA's emissions proposal as a solution for hot weather brought on by global warming, but when the hearings began at 9 a.m. Wednesday in Denver, the temperature was a chilly 58 degrees. Plus, it was raining.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/30/al-gores-climate-changers-epa-hearings-foiled-cool/#ixzz392SyzHMk (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/30/al-gores-climate-changers-epa-hearings-foiled-cool/#ixzz392SyzHMk)
Quote from: Solar on July 30, 2014, 06:32:40 PM
No, I think his professor is busy with another project at the moment. :biggrin:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi668.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv43%2Fkeith666-81%2FRedneck_RoadsideAutoRepair.jpg&hash=20d0bedf9a1dfafe3764261d0c0b0006f3234f5e)
Too funny.
BTW, "he" is like Candyman, mention him five times and he'll show up. :lol: :lol:
Quote from: carlb on July 31, 2014, 03:01:44 AM
poor Algore, just can't catch a break. Seems to happen to him every time!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I swear, it's almost as if God is playing with the rat in a maze, changing up the passages every time Al Gorbachev chooses a new route.
God: Hey Gabriel and Jesus, check out this idiot, I've been making it windy and cold, sometimes snow or rain, every time this idiot tries to claim man is influential enough to affect weather and heat up the planet.
What an arrogant putz!
Jesus, want to hit him with lightning for measured effect? :laugh:
Quote from: keyboarder on July 31, 2014, 06:06:49 AM
Too funny.
BTW, "he" is like Candyman, mention him five times and he'll show up. :lol: :lol:
More like Beetle Juice. :laugh:
Quote from: Solar on July 31, 2014, 06:20:00 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I swear, it's almost as if God is playing with the rat in a maze, changing up the passages every time Al Gorbachev chooses a new route.
God: Hey Gabriel and Jesus, check out this idiot, I've been making it windy and cold, sometimes snow or rain, every time this idiot tries to claim man is influential enough to affect weather and heat up the planet.
What an arrogant putz!
Jesus, want to hit him with lightning for measured effect? :laugh:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crsrbqwgqqqgbkwgxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fdgbstgkbxbwdtrkfkwxrdqrkkwrk%2F1%2F1595431%2F12821599%2Fgorepunishment274x150vivi-vi.png&hash=ce1ee82eb79b42c429f00926de152a6003809f34)
Tremble, all ye who enter his presence!
Quote from: quiller on July 31, 2014, 06:27:10 AM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crsrbqwgqqqgbkwgxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fdgbstgkbxbwdtrkfkwxrdqrkkwrk%2F1%2F1595431%2F12821599%2Fgorepunishment274x150vivi-vi.png&hash=ce1ee82eb79b42c429f00926de152a6003809f34)
Tremble, all ye who enter his presence!
Quite appropriate there squire. :lol:
Quote from: Solar on July 31, 2014, 06:33:14 AM
Quite appropriate there squire. :lol:
Al Gore has been a particular interest of mine since 1970 when he showed his ass at Defense Information School taking journalism classes there, about six weeks ahead of me. I didn't meet the "Senator's Son" mentioned in
Fortunate Son by Creedence --- but I sure caught the melody, the ballad of a pampered halfwit VIP's kid who would never
under any circumstances whatsoever realize just how big a flaming hypocrite he really was (or would be).
Liberals amaze me at their refusal to criticize Gore's personal energy footprint at that mansion of his, or the carbon consumption of all his jet travels to places gullible enough to pay him. To this day they believe he was cheated of the Presidency, all because the Constitution had to be followed.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crswkwtrrqfdkwbwxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Frgkswtgtrxkgbqbrgss%2F1%2F1595431%2F12821599%2Fyouregettingwarmervi-vi.jpg&hash=ed626d6773e221a162675cc518a187093112bae5)
Quote from: quiller on July 31, 2014, 06:50:21 AM
Al Gore has been a particular interest of mine since 1970 when he showed his ass at Defense Information School taking journalism classes there, about six weeks ahead of me. I didn't meet the "Senator's Son" mentioned in Fortunate Son by Creedence --- but I sure caught the melody, the ballad of a pampered halfwit VIP's kid who would never under any circumstances whatsoever realize just how big a flaming hypocrite he really was (or would be).
Liberals amaze me at their refusal to criticize Gore's personal energy footprint at that mansion of his, or the carbon consumption of all his jet travels to places gullible enough to pay him. To this day they believe he was cheated of the Presidency, all because the Constitution had to be followed.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crswkwtrrqfdkwbwxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Frgkswtgtrxkgbqbrgss%2F1%2F1595431%2F12821599%2Fyouregettingwarmervi-vi.jpg&hash=ed626d6773e221a162675cc518a187093112bae5)
Liberal hypocrisy is always overlooked for the greater good.
Mao is smiling down upon this mental midget.
Quote from: taxed on July 30, 2014, 08:38:22 AM
Your idiocy can always be dismantled with common sense. You people always fail.
Common sense tells us quantum mechanics and general relativity are obviously bullshit. The scientific method tells us that they are actually the two most accurate models of reality we've ever devised. You see, this shit is actually pretty complicated, and if you want to refute climate change models,
address the mathematics and the physics, instead of citing vague forbes articles written by communications majors and appealing to your godammed gut.
QuoteSo ok I say fine to the libs, we'll worry about the global warming when it actually starts to happen.
In oh about another six billion or so years.
If the human race hasn't gone to the stars by that point, we deserve to burn.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 10, 2014, 11:06:06 PM
Common sense tells us quantum mechanics and general relativity are obviously bullshit. The scientific method tells us that they are actually the two most accurate models of reality we've ever devised. You see, this shit is actually pretty complicated, and if you want to refute climate change models, address the mathematics and the physics, instead of citing vague forbes articles written by communications majors and appealing to your godammed gut.
I can explain it to you. As someone who has used math in the real world to eat, like many of us here except you, your models have consistently been wrong and based on fraudulent data. In the real world, if they continue to be wrong, you go out of business and lose money. In academia, you get a tenure.
Normal people hear your man-made global warming BS and dismiss it. Those people who you think know what they're talking about are just idiots, like the geniuses on the research ship that got stuck in the ice.
Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 11:18:58 AM
I can explain it to you. As someone who has used math in the real world to eat, like many of us here except you, your models have consistently been wrong and based on fraudulent data.
To support this assertion, you produced two random quotations. Apparently, two inaccurate predictions from two random scientists means that the entire field is wrong. Do you realize I could use the same logic to disprove the validity of
math?
Quote
In the real world, if they continue to be wrong, you go out of business and lose money. In academia, you get a tenure.
Maybe that's your problem - you're trying to judge scientific theories with business principles and not, you know, the scientific method.
Quote
Normal people hear your man-made global warming BS and dismiss it. Those people who you think know what they're talking about are just idiots, like the geniuses on the research ship that got stuck in the ice.
"Normal people" aren't very good at science. You have to be somewhat talented in the field and, more importantly, do real research and study. From the sources you've cited, it's obvious that you get everything you know about AGW off of the "bostonherald" and "forbes.com", ie, you're a google warrior.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 05:33:21 PM
To support this assertion, you produced two random quotations. Apparently, two inaccurate predictions from two random scientists means that the entire field is wrong. Do you realize I could use the same logic to disprove the validity of math?
I'm not the one who calls CO2 a pollutant. Common sense and logic makes is obvious that anyone who says that doesn't have a firm grasp on anything.
Quote
Maybe that's your problem - you're trying to judge scientific theories with business principles and not, you know, the scientific method.
It has nothing to do with business principals. We get it right because we have to, therefore, we do. Or, we fail, figure out what we got wrong, and try again. You get it wrong and get a good grade on your report card. There is a difference, and you really should learn your place intellectually.
Quote
"Normal people" aren't very good at science. You have to be somewhat talented in the field and, more importantly, do real research and study. From the sources you've cited, it's obvious that you get everything you know about AGW off of the "bostonherald" and "forbes.com", ie, you're a google warrior.
Like these geniuses?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/11/report-bill-nye-al-gore-get-the-physics-of-global-warming-wrong/ (http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/11/report-bill-nye-al-gore-get-the-physics-of-global-warming-wrong/)
QuoteCritics are saying Bill Nye "the science guy" and former Vice President Al Gore got their global warming science wrong, citing previously published research.
Back in 2011, Nye and Gore teamed up to show that global warming was real using "a simple lab experiment." The problem is that such experiments have been discredited by scientists who the say these demonstrations show heat transport, not global warming.
"Although not an accurate demonstration of the physics of climate change, the experiment we have considered and related ones are valuable examples of the dangers of unintentional bias in science, the value of at least a rough quantitative prediction of the expected effect, the importance of considering alternative explanations, and the need for carefully designed experimental controls," according to a paper by scientists from Tufts and the Technical Education Research Centers.
During a 2011 "24 hours of climate reality" by the Climate Reality Project, a group founded by Gore to sound the alarm on global warming, Nye put together a "Climate Change 101" video which used "a simple lab experiment" to demonstrate how increasing levels of carbon dioxide emissions heat the planet.
Nye's "simple" experiment involved sealing thermometers inside two identical bottles, which were sealed. To illustrate the effects of increased carbon dioxide on temperature, Nye fits a hose from a CO2 canister into one of the bottles. Both bottles are then placed placed under heat lamps.
"Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher," Nye said in his video experiment. "The bottles are like our atmosphere, the lamps are like our sun."
A paper published in a 2010 edition of the American Journal of Physics found that experiments like Nye's are "not an accurate demonstration of the physics of climate change."
These experiments have not just been reproduced by Nye, but by scientists and teachers around the country to illustrate the cause of global warming in a simple, easy to understand way. But they all suffer a fatal flaw: they illustrate "processes related to convective heat transport that plays no role in climate change."
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Are we all going to die on Tuesday again?
Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 09:02:39 PM
I'm not the one who calls CO2 a pollutant.
Please provide an quantifiable definition of "pollutant".
Excess CO2 is a bad thing, in the same manner that excess sugar, fat, or even water is bad for humans. That a certain level of CO2 is necessary for our survival does not change this fact.
Quote
Common sense and logic makes is obvious that anyone who says that doesn't have a firm grasp on anything.
"Common sense and logic" and the "scientific method" are not the same thing at all, but it's far easier to bullshit knowledge on the former than the latter.
Quote
It has nothing to do with business principals. We get it right because we have to, therefore, we do. Or, we fail, figure out what we got wrong, and try again. You get it wrong and get a good grade on your report card. There is a difference, and you really should learn your place intellectually.
Science
is academia. :rolleyes:
Quote
Like these geniuses?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/11/report-bill-nye-al-gore-get-the-physics-of-global-warming-wrong/ (http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/11/report-bill-nye-al-gore-get-the-physics-of-global-warming-wrong/)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
So instead of actually looking at professional scientific papers, you decide to criticize...a politician, and a comedian? :lol:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 09:12:25 PM
Please provide an quantifiable definition of "pollutant".
No. That implies I give the idiocy validity. It is make believe and ridiculous to call it a pollutant, and if I try to prove it isn't a pollutant, like trying to prove Santa doesn't exist, then I engage in idiocy. It is so stupid to even consider, that I make fun at someone who calls it a pollutant, of any kind. I'm not dumb and gullible to think it is a pollutant.
Quote
Excess CO2 is a bad thing, in the same manner that excess sugar, fat, or even water is bad for humans. That a certain level of CO2 is necessary for our survival does not change this fact.
You are still in make believe land. There is no CO2 danger.
Quote
"Common sense and logic" and the "scientific method" are not the same thing at all, but it's far easier to bullshit knowledge on the former than the latter.
I don't follow and take seriously idiots who think the Arctic sea ice is melting, take a boat up there, and get stuck. I'm with the people who called them idiots and making fun of them after.
Quote
Science is academia. :rolleyes:
Nope. Science is science.
Quote
So instead of actually looking at professional scientific papers, you decide to criticize...a politician, and a comedian? :lol:
I don't blame them for trying anything. The only problem is not everyone is as stupid as they think.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2014, 09:08:30 PM
Are we all going to die on Tuesday again?
Sci Fi the CPF science guy says we have a CO2 crisis.
Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 09:31:26 PM
No. That implies I give the idiocy validity. It is make believe and ridiculous to call it a pollutant, and if I try to prove it isn't a pollutant, like trying to prove Santa doesn't exist, then I engage in idiocy. It is so stupid to even consider, that I make fun at someone who calls it a pollutant, of any kind. I'm not dumb and gullible to think it is a pollutant.
This isn't how scientific theories are discussed in any capacity. If you want to discuss this like you know what you're talking about, you will provide data, math, definitions, units, and observations. But you won't do any of this, because you literally have no idea what you're talking about.
QuoteYou are still in make believe land. There is no CO2 danger.
Break out the math for me, then.
Quote
I don't blame them for trying anything. The only problem is not everyone is as stupid as they think.
The point clearly sailed over your head, so let me spell it out for you: If you want to discuss AGW, discuss the professional, peer reviewed papers. What Bill Nye says is completely irrelevant.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 09:42:47 PM
This isn't how scientific theories are discussed in any capacity. If you want to discuss this like you know what you're talking about, you will provide data, math, definitions, units, and observations. But you won't do any of this, because you literally have no idea what you're talking about.
Break out the math for me, then.
The point clearly sailed over your head, so let me spell it out for you: If you want to discuss AGW, discuss the professional, peer reviewed papers. What Bill Nye says is completely irrelevant.
You're chasing what you want to believe. Your hockey stick scam has already been busted. Quit chasing CO2 molecules with butterfly nets and study some real science, not this fake "climate science" crap.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/23050 (http://www.news.wisc.edu/23050)
QuoteWhen the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently requested a figure for its annual report, to show global temperature trends over the last 10,000 years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Zhengyu Liu knew that was going to be a problem.
"We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming."
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's going to be 73 tomorrow....in August. I love global warming climate change.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2014, 09:55:54 PM
It's going to be 73 tomorrow....in August. I love global warming climate change.
Supposed to be 79 degrees tomorrow here in the north central. Boy what a scorching summer day.
Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 10:01:13 PM
Supposed to be 79 degrees tomorrow here in the north central. Boy what a scorching summer day.
We're gonna melt!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2014, 10:03:29 PM
We're gonna melt!
It's my own fault. I haven't read any peer reviewed papers lately.
Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 10:04:14 PM
It's my own fault. I haven't read any peer reviewed papers lately.
Why not? They're reviewed! By peers!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2014, 10:07:39 PM
Why not? They're reviewed! By peers!
I'm going to bring a bunch with me next time I go camping. That way when it gets cold, I can read the peer reviewed papers to prove to myself how warm it is.
Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 10:11:56 PM
I'm going to bring a bunch with me next time I go camping. That way when it gets cold, I can read the peer reviewed papers to prove to myself how warm it is.
I'm going to wear them in the winter!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2014, 10:13:52 PM
I'm going to wear them in the winter!
Just get them back to Sci Fi Fan before school starts again.
Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 10:15:49 PM
Just get them back to Sci Fi Fan before school starts again.
He's still in ninth grade? That's three years now.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2014, 10:17:58 PM
He's still in ninth grade? That's three years now.
It's a career now.
It's the middle of August and it's in the mid 60s.
Quote from: taxed on August 12, 2014, 03:10:25 PM
It's the middle of August and it's in the mid 60s.
Yep, same here, mildest August we've ever felt.
Quote from: taxed on August 12, 2014, 03:10:25 PM
It's the middle of August and it's in the mid 60s.
It's 105º and the wind is blowing at 55 mph at my house right now. Who said God does not have a sense of humor. :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on August 12, 2014, 03:18:21 PM
It's 105º and the wind is blowing at 55 mph at my house right now. Who said God does not have a sense of humor. :lol:
Global warming!!!!!
Quote from: Solar on July 28, 2014, 06:21:52 AM
And those readings taken were stations being effected by islanding temperatures, meaning it's actually getting colder than the report alludes to.
Yes boiz and goilz, the planet is cooling, it's in a natural cycle with the sun, and no, it has absolutely nothing to do with man.
I was just watching the new "Cosmos" show with Neil Tyson Degraff and I found it interesting how he stated in one episode a number of times that the Earth is actually in the middle of an ice age, as it was when our species walked out of Africa. We've just been in a "warmer period" of the natural warming and cooling cycle of the planet for the past couple hundred years.
Apparently this Cosmologist didn't get the memo that he's supposed to be on board with the Anthro-climate change crowd or else...hahahahaha
Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 09:53:04 PM
You're chasing what you want to believe.
You haven't presented a single reliable piece of analysis in any of your ramblings. You've quoted pop-science articles, blogs, and your own "gut feeling". You're so fucking ignorant, you actually tried to discredit global warming by
quoting a comedian. :lol:
Quote
Your hockey stick scam has already been busted. Quit chasing CO2 molecules with butterfly nets and study some real science, not this fake "climate science" crap
:blush: Oh, sweetie, you just put your ass out on the line, and you really shouldn't have, because now I'm going to ask you to present to me the "real science" you've studied. What are your credentials, exactly? Where did you get your information on global warming from? If it's from any sort of reputable scientific resource, why the fuck don't you cite that, instead of:
Quote
http://www.news.wisc.edu/23050 (http://www.news.wisc.edu/23050)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
...you cited an online
newspaper? Is that where you've gotten all of your "real science" from? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: