Judging by the deleted post and the row of emoticons it seems like you have something you are trying to say.
I deleted my post because I said just about the same thing as FON, and I didn't want it so seem like a circle-jerk.
I'm trying to say (In my inebriated state) that you're being taken in by the arguments and propaganda of industrialists and corporate news-men, rather than looking at the science of the matter. It doesn't make you a faggoty liberal or anything to admit the situation. Just someone who respects research.
I deleted my post because I said just about the same thing as FON, and I didn't want it so seem like a circle-jerk.
I'm trying to say (In my inebriated state) that you're being taken in by the arguments and propaganda of industrialists and corporate news-men, rather than looking at the science of the matter. It doesn't make you a faggoty liberal or anything to admit the situation. Just someone who respects research.
That would be quite a trick on their part seeing as I don't watch the news or read the newspaper. I am basing my views on the patterns I have seen with my own eyes over the last almost 50 years. And I don't mean weather patterns either. I am talking about the manipulations that take place by the media over the masses for the gain of the industrialists.
It is the same industrialists that you incorrectly assume I have been taken in by that are propagating this whole hoax for their own monetary greed. So while you have glimpse the surface you have yet to open your eyes fully.
That would be quite a trick on their part seeing as I don't watch the news or read the newspaper. I am basing my views on the patterns I have seen with my own eyes over the last almost 50 years. And I don't mean weather patterns either. I am talking about the manipulations that take place by the media over the masses for the gain of the industrialists.
It is the same industrialists that you incorrectly assume I have been taken in by that are propagating this whole hoax for their own monetary greed. So while you have glimpse the surface you have yet to open your eyes fully.
We're going in circles, here. I gave you some evidence (You refuse to read it. If you had, we wouldn't be in disagreement.), you call it bullshit from your high-horse (You know more than we'll ever will about the subject (Your eyes are open, ours closed), yet refuse to explain), you call bullshit, provide nothing to counter, and it continues on.
Why the hell did you make this thread?
So you can go on about how we've been fooled by Al Gore, and people trying to sell solar-panels??
We're going in circles, here. I gave you some evidence (1* You refuse to read it. 2*If you had, we wouldn't be in disagreement.), you call it bullshit from your high-horse (You know more than we'll ever will about the subject (Your eyes are open, ours closed), yet refuse to explain), you call bullshit, provide nothing to counter, and it continues on.
3* Why the hell did you make this thread?
So you can go on about how we've been fooled by Al Gore, and people trying to sell solar-panels??
Correction, I refused to re-read it.
Again, I must correct you. I have read it, time and again. Nut yet I still don't buy it. Therefore your assumption that if I would only read it I would believe it as you do leads you to your false conclusion as to the reason we don't agree on this topic.
To entertain myself and others via the discussion of a controversial political topic.
[*]Again, I must correct you. I have read it, time and again. Nut yet I still don't buy it. Therefore your assumption that if I would only read it I would believe it as you do leads you to your false conclusion as to the reason we don't agree on this topic.
Why do you know better than the scientific community?
Why do you know better than the scientific community?
As I have already shown not all of the scientific community agrees that global warming caused by man is real. Remember that scientists used to also believe in alchemy and that the earth was flat.
Why do you know better than the scientific community?
There is no such thing as "The Scientific Community". There are those who's research gets funded and published and those who's research is shoved in the trash heap when it does not support what the people supplying the funds need to have represented as the truth.
That has been taking place since even Tesla was crushed. Hell look at what Royal Raymond Rife was put through for daring to tell the truth when it did not fit in with the huge planned profits for modern medicine. I am really not trying to put anyone down or come of as "holier than thou" it is just that I have been alive long enough to see them switch the "truth" several times. Many here have not seen that with their own eyes. My real hope ITT is not to convince you now, but rather plant a seed that one day (in some who read this) will grow into a lens and a light with which those who dare someday to think for themselves may examine the world they find and grasp at many shards of truth in a sea of lies.
Yeah, I know that last bit was a bit Specyrptic but it really is difficult to share info like this with those who are not yet ready to stop sliding when presented with certain information. I know countless folks IRL who have had their eyes opened. They come in all walks of life and from all age groups. The one thing they all have in common is you don't have to explain it to them. They already understand what is really taking place vs what the media and government have presented as reality.
The bottom line is Global Warming data was cooked, they got busted for it, they changed it from Global Warming to Climate Change to distance the fabricated "event" from the cooked data, most of the folks who bought Global Warming are buying Climate Change (which they have to to avoid losing face over misplaced trust in their previous belief in Global Warming), and most of the folks who did not buy into Global Warming are not buying into Climate Change.
But since those who do believe in GW/CM shout about the science of it riddle me this. How can a science that can't even be 100% certain as to whether or not it will rain on a given day in a given place be certain about anything on the scale involved in GW/CM? In other words it is simply one theory and nothing has yet to be proven.
We're going in circles, here. I gave you some evidence (You refuse to read it. If you had, we wouldn't be in disagreement.), you call it bullshit from your high-horse (You know more than we'll ever will about the subject (Your eyes are open, ours closed), yet refuse to explain), you call bullshit, provide nothing to counter, and it continues on.
Why the hell did you make this thread?
So you can go on about how we've been fooled by Al Gore, and people trying to sell solar-panels??
Glad I'm not alone on this.
That would be quite a trick on their part seeing as I don't watch the news or read the newspaper. I am basing my views on the patterns I have seen with my own eyes over the last almost 50 years. And I don't mean weather patterns either. I am talking about the manipulations that take place by the media over the masses for the gain of the industrialists.
So admittedly, you aren't basing your opinion on science, studies, or anything like that. I'm sorry but that just isn't credible, except maybe in the paranoid delusions forum. A conspiracy involving the media bribing thousands upon thousands of scientists to lie about climate change/global warming when we've been aware of it for over a hundred years just seems a bit unrealistic to me.
But since those who do believe in GW/CM shout about the science of it riddle me this. How can a science that can't even be 100% certain as to whether or not it will rain on a given day in a given place be certain about anything on the scale involved in GW/CM? In other words it is simply one theory and nothing has yet to be proven.
Hahahahaha!
I'd say our weather man is right at LEAST 90% of the time. There are huge amounts of recorded phenomena that correlate with global warming/climate change, you just choose to ignore them.
Saying the weather man isn't right 100% of the time, so the hundreds of climatologists studying the environment for decades must be full of shit is really quite absurd.
I'd say our weather man is right at LEAST 90% of the time. There are huge amounts of recorded phenomena that correlate with global warming/climate change, you just choose to ignore them.
Saying the weather man isn't right 100% of the time, so the hundreds of climatologists studying the environment for decades must be full of shit is really quite absurd.
The issue here is that on a very deep level, he associates "belief" in climate change with liberals and democrats, and so he cannot bring himself to consider it seriously. It's all a scam to sell green-technology. :rolleyes:
The issue here is that on a very deep level, he associates "belief" in climate change with liberals and democrats, and so he cannot bring himself to consider it seriously. It's all a scam to sell green-technology. :rolleyes:
So why was "global warming" changed to "climate change" almost immediately after evidence of cooked data was uncovered?
So why was "global warming" changed to "climate change" almost immediately after evidence of cooked data was uncovered?
You mean in the "Climategate scandal", when, under further investigation, no wrong doing was found on the part of the scientists? Nothing was "cooked" or misrepresented whatsoever.
So admittedly, you aren't basing your opinion on science, studies, or anything like that. I'm sorry but that just isn't credible, except maybe in the paranoid delusions forum. A conspiracy involving the media bribing thousands upon thousands of scientists to lie about climate change/global warming when we've been aware of it for over a hundred years just seems a bit unrealistic to me.
I see you are one of those types that comments on a post with an indication that the other person admitted something which they never touched on one way or the other to further your own position in a conversation.
I'd say our weather man is right at LEAST 90% of the time. There are huge amounts of recorded phenomena that correlate with global warming/climate change, you just choose to ignore them.
Saying the weather man isn't right 100% of the time, so the hundreds of climatologists studying the environment for decades must be full of shit is really quite absurd.
Show me any TV weather man that has a 90% accuracy, except in a market like San Diego.
KFMB Evening News Anchor: "And now to our weather with Matt Baylow."
Matt: "Today's weather is nice, extremely nice until tomorrow with continued nice. Now back to you Bob."
The issue here is that on a very deep level, he associates "belief" in climate change with liberals and democrats, and so he cannot bring himself to consider it seriously. It's all a scam to sell green-technology. :rolleyes:
You mean in the "Climategate scandal", when, under further investigation, no wrong doing was found on the part of the scientists? Nothing was "cooked" or misrepresented whatsoever.
Show me any TV weather man that has a 90% accuracy, except in a market like San Diego.
KFMB Evening News Anchor: "And now to our weather with Matt Baylow."
Matt: "Today's weather is nice, extremely nice until tomorrow with continued nice. Now back to you Bob."
Well in Australia the weather man goes a lot more in depth than 'the weather is nice, back to you bob' (I understand you may be exaggerating that a bit to make your point), as well as being accurate I'd say 90% of the time. Last year especially. The huge rain and flooding suffered in Brisbane was predicted well in advance, as was every other rainfall I remember watching the news for.
I see you are one of those types that comments on a post with an indication that the other person admitted something which they never touched on one way or the other to further your own position in a conversation.
Perhaps I misunderstood you? Could you please explain the mechanics of how this global warming conspiracy works? Why do thousands of climatologists agree to posting false information?
EDIT: I also noticed this because the weather man talk got me pondering wtf predicting short-term weather has to do with long term climate effects.
How can a science that can't even be 100% certain as to whether or not it will rain on a given day in a given place be certain about anything on the scale involved in GW/CM?
You are confusing meteorology with climatology. LOL!
Global warming hysteria? Climate skeptic propaganda websites do not count as credible information...Neither does fox news.
DOUBLE EDIT: For the sake of not posting again, I thought I'd just edit it in here.
This is to clarify the difference between climate change and global warming. They are two clearly defined phenomena regarding two entirely separate types of environmental change. Each having their respective place within the media.
Perhaps FON would care to provide us a list of what is, in his esteemed opinion, consider a credible media source. I am not sticking up for Fox but your outright dismissal of them brands you as the brainwashed liberal that you are.
Get this FON, all of the networks are part of the same lie factory.
Of course, as with all discussions with liberals the only credible sources are those which support their position. I'll tell you what FON you just go with your narrow field of view, just as your shepherds have bid you, and I will bask in the warmth of my own thoughts.
TDR, is almost every government on the face of the Earth taking climate-change seriously and taking measures to reduce our impact and cope with the consequences of climate-change just to fuck with us, or did the solar panel companies and Al Gore get to all of them too?
Who do you think Al Gore is? He is a well paid puppet and nothing more. I would suggest you look to history and Brussels as a jumping off point to learn what you lack.
Who do you think Al Gore is? He is a well paid puppet and nothing more. I would suggest you look to history and Brussels as a jumping off point to learn what you lack.
Omit the Al-Gore bit and answer my question, then.
Omit the Al-Gore bit and answer my question, then.
Like I said, if you want to begin to understand who and what is behind it look to history and Brussels for a good solid foundation to begin your learning on.
Like I said, if you want to begin to understand who and what is behind it look to history and Brussels for a good solid foundation to begin your learning on.
EDIT: Hold on.
If you don't remotely give a fuck about the conclusions reached by the scientific community, what will convince you?
Anyway, it's a good thing that people like you don't usually have a say in the decision making process for dealing with these sorts of matters.
If you don't remotely give a fuck about the conclusions reached by the scientific community, what will convince you?
Anyway, it's a good thing that people like you don't usually have a say in the decision making process for dealing with these sorts of matters.
I already told you, there is no "scientific community". If "people like me" had more of a say in things there would be a lot less problems in this world and a lot more to go around. Your very labeling of me as "people like you" is proof positive that you have been conditioned my the media to slide whenever "people like me" present you with kernels of the truth.
I have lived long enough to know that nothing I can say here is going to unprogram you. But, I also know that I have planted many seeds ITT and who knows, maybe someday you will be one of the lucky ones who finds that something new and wonderful has taken root in your own mind, an original thought.
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.
"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.
WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.
Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.
"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.
In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."
The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."
"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.
Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.
"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.
Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."
He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.
"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.
"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.
"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.
He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.
"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.
The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.
^Of course those who have been conditioned to slide by the media will dismiss these 31,000 "scientists" as fringe kooks or something to that affect. Right FON and JAA?
It's like when I used to get sucked into arguments with the likes of JFLC lol
So in other words you are just going to "slide" out as you have been conditioned by the media to do whenever you are faced with data that does not support what you have been told to believe?
Or did you often lose "arguments" to JLFC?
BTW, you are the only one arguing, I am just having a conversation.
Perhaps FON would care to provide us a list of what is, in his esteemed opinion, consider a credible media source. I am not sticking up for Fox but your outright dismissal of them brands you as the brainwashed liberal that you are.
If you at least knew the difference between meteorology and climatology I would be inclined to take you a bit more seriously. Or if you actually answered my questions instead of changing the subject.
"Could you please explain the mechanics of how this global warming conspiracy works? Why do thousands of climatologists agree to posting false information?"
It's lulzy seeing wiki pages, fox news and climate skeptic propaganda being cited as 'credible sources'. What planet are you guys on!?...Also, saying everybody that disagrees with you is brainwashed is fucking LOL. If anything, it just makes your position more doubtful. You don't know these people at all, stop being a conceited fool pretending you know so much about the inner workings of their mind. It does nothing for your argument.
And I'm not going to bother listing sources because every time somebody DOES, and it doesn't agree with what the skeptics are saying, it's instantly written off as useless. There is not much point to this thread. Just fun watching you guys flounder for information while simultaneously discrediting every piece of info that disagrees with you...
Climate skeptics: What WILL they come up with next?
Haha I know. It reminds me of arguing with ate...Somehow they just know better than us and we are expected to accept what they say as truth, without the need of anything more than their word.
Haha I know. It reminds me of arguing with ate...Somehow they just know better than us and we are expected to accept what they say as truth, without the need of anything more than their word.
Way to ignore 31,000 members of the "scientific community" that both you and JAA have been touting as end all and be all of this conversation. :facepalm:
Way to ignore 31,000 members of the "scientific community" that both you and JAA have been touting as end all and be all of this conversation. :facepalm:
Are you physically incapable of answering a direct question? It doesn't seem like you even read my post...
If you at least knew the difference between meteorology and climatology I would be inclined to take you a bit more seriously. Or if you actually answered my questions instead of changing the subject.
"Could you please explain the mechanics of how this global warming conspiracy works? Why do thousands of climatologists agree to posting false information?"
They are not the 'end all be all' as you put it...The scientific community (yes, there is such a thing as the scientific community :facepalm:) is simply the most CREDIBLE source on this subject. Somehow I trust 31000 scientists opinions over some delusional conspiracists on the internet who can't even distinguish between global warming and climate change or meteorology and climatology.
Are you physically incapable of answering a direct question? It doesn't seem like you even read my post...
They are not the 'end all be all' as you put it...The scientific community (yes, there is such a thing as the scientific community :facepalm:) is simply the most CREDIBLE source on this subject. Somehow I trust 31000 scientists opinions over some delusional conspiracists on the internet who can't even distinguish between global warming and climate change or meteorology and climatology.
So in the same sentence you accept the findings of 31,000 scientists and detract from their findings by attacking me with ad hominem? I know the difference between global warming and climate change. I also know the difference for the purpose of this topic. Do you? These are both terms that were coined by those who would continue to propagate this hoax. When they were found out the changed the terminology from global warming to climate change in a lame attempt at damage control.
Which is it FON?
Do you dismiss the 31,000 scientists
Or do you accept that global warming/climate change is merely a theory at this point with no sound empirical evidence to to establish this theory as fact?
At this point I must ask you how old you were in 1999 when this was published?
by H. Sterling Burnett
In 1988, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, testified before the Senate that based on computer models and temperature measurements he was "99 percent sure . . the [human caused] greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now." His statement was widely covered by the media and brought the term "global warming" to the general public's attention for the first time. Many of his colleagues thought, and still think, that his announcement was premature at best and rash at worst. But critics received little attention in the rush to publicize this most apocalyptic of all environmental threats.
The Basis Of Global Warming Theory
Hansen and other proponents of the theory that humans are causing a dangerous change in the earth's climate base their belief on several sets of data (e.g., temperatures, greenhouse gas levels and climate phenomena). For example:
* Ground-level temperature measurements show the earth has warmed between 0.3 degrees and 0.6 degrees Celsius in the last century.
* Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), a primary greenhouse gas, has increased by approximately 30 percent in the last century and a half.
Using these facts to simulate atmospheric conditions in computerized climate models, some scientists infer that the earth's current warming is due to the increase in atmospheric CO 2 caused primarily by the use of fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas). According to the models, absent a sharp and immediate reduction in the level of CO 2 emissions, the earth will warm a further 0.8 degrees to 3.5 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years. Proponents of the models argue the earth's warming will cause such calamities as rising ocean levels from melting polar ice caps, increased hurricane activity and severe droughts.
Global warming theory rests on three cornerstones: climate models, scientific analyses of past and present climate data and trends, and the assertion that increases in greenhouse gases drive up global temperatures. However, recent scientific discoveries are chipping away at these cornerstones.
Eroding Cornerstone: Temperature Trends And Climate Models Match
The increase in the earth's surface temperature during the past 150 years is far less than the best climate models predicted.
Based on models, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 1990 that if no further action were taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions, we could expect an increase in temperature between 4.5 degrees and 6.0 degrees Celsius by 2050. In 1996 a new IPCC prediction was for an increase of 0.8 degrees to 3.5 degrees Celsius by 2100 - less than half the warming in twice the time. A U.S. government survey of the global climate model literature conducted predicted even less warming - between 0.5 degrees and 2.0 degrees Celsius by 2100. (See figure) With every new report the range of warming falls, which implies that the early models on which the most catastrophic claims were based were crude predictors of global climate change.
As the models improve they show less and less warming - which is in line with actual temperature data - and a reduced likelihood of harmful environmental events. Yet even the improved climate models are flawed. When the models' past and present temperature estimates are compared to actual past and present temperature measurements, the models are off by more than a degree. If the models cannot describe past or present temperatures correctly, why should we base public policy decisions on their predictions of future temperatures?
Eroding Cornerstone: Natural Climate Change Takes Thousands Of Years
Environmentalists have argued that the slight surface warming of just over 1 degree Fahrenheit the earth has experienced since the mid-1800s must be the result of human activities, since natural temperature changes this substantial occur over hundreds or even thousands of years. But a study published in the October 2, 1998, issue of Science showed that around 12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit in approximately 50 years. This natural change was more than 10 times the "catastrophic" warming environmentalists claim humans are causing - and it occurred in half the time. The finding confirms that global climate can change dramatically within a very short period and can do so absent human influence.
Eroding Cornerstone: Increased CO 2 Emissions, Primarily From The United States, Are Responsible For Current Surface Warming
Brief Analyses | Global Warming
Read Article as PDF
Bookmark and Share
No. 299
Wednesday, June 30, 1999
Environmentalists also have argued that since the United States is the largest emitter of CO 2 , the greenhouse gas of primary concern, it should take the lead in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately for their argument, it turns out that the U.S. is in fact a leading "air filter." According to an October 16, 1998, article in Science, North America removes more carbon (about 2 billion tons) from the atmosphere than it emits (1.5 billion tons) each year. One reason is the tremendous regrowth in the eastern U.S. of forests that act as carbon sinks, removing CO 2 from the atmosphere.
Even more damaging to the environmentalists' argument is the fact that most of the warming over the last century occurred before 1940 - preceding the vast majority of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Global warming alarmists have been unable to explain this mismatch between warming theory and scientific data.
Two scientific papers published in March of this year may explain the mismatch quite well. In the March 11 issue of Nature, scientists report that contrary to the belief that both CO 2 and global temperature have remained fairly constant during the last 11,000 years, global temperature has remained relatively stable (± 1 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit from the average), but CO 2 levels have varied greatly.
In a March 12, 1999, paper in Science, a team of researchers concluded that when the earth shifts from glacial to warm periods, as it does every 100,000 years or so, temperature rise consistently precedes increased CO 2 levels by between 400 and 1,000 years. This finding is at odds with global warming theory and the idea that increased levels of CO 2 force climate temperatures upward, but it does correspond with reality. The earth came out of a "Little Ice Age" during the middle of the last century. During that time global temperature was about 1 degree cooler than at present. If the current research is correct, one could surmise that the temperature increase at the end of the Little Ice Age has, like previous warming, preceded an entirely natural increase in CO 2 . While human activities have probably contributed to the current CO 2 increase, the link between that increase and warmer temperatures becomes more uncertain with each new scientific discovery.
Conclusion
James Hansen, whose 1988 pronouncements started the clamor for action to prevent global warming, wrote in the 1998 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that "the forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." So much for being sure.
While the theory of global warming still may be correct, new evidence chipping away at its cornerstones should preclude precipitous, costly and perhaps unnecessary government actions. Whether human-induced climate change is occurring and, if so, what response is appropriate are questions that merit further research.
This brief analysis was written by NCPA Senior Policy Analyst H. Sterling Burnett.
Or how old were you in 1988 when James Hansen, whose 1988 pronouncements started the clamor for action to prevent global warming?
I ask these question regarding your age not as a lame attempt at ad hominem which has become the cornerstone of your attempt to "win" a conversation, but rather to point out that when the whole bullshit began I was already living over 2000 miles from my parents and functioning every day as an adult in society. In other words I remember this whole 23 year long attempt to put forth a faulty theory as hard fact.
I'm too baked to respond in full, but I'm not trying to 'win' this argument. It was established a page back that winning is not an option...It's just fun.
Will come back when I figure out how attacking you with ad hominem detracts anything from those 31000 scientists findings...I do apologize for my exasperation :fap:
EDIT: Thanks for posting the article. Curious as to when itself was published?
Sorry for the late reply. I've been at a music festival and have been too fucked up to post a proper reply...If you aren't TDR, don't bother reading. I wouldn't.
I also know the difference for the purpose of this topic. Do you? These are both terms that were coined by those who would continue to propagate this hoax. When they were found out the changed the terminology from global warming to climate change in a lame attempt at damage control.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man...You’ve still failed to provide anything convincing. I'm going to rely on the guys who study these things for a living. If I ever find out they are all lying through their teeth, I will shut the hell up.
Which is it FON?
Do you dismiss the 31,000 scientists
Or do you accept that global warming/climate change is merely a theory at this point with no sound empirical evidence to to establish this theory as fact?
I'm a skeptic on most things, I find little point believing in anything I cannot see or completely comprehend. I am open to global warming being not all it’s cracked up to be, or even completely non-existent. I am going by my own research on the subject, as you are. But, I am not willing to run the risk that I know better than the people who study these phenomena for a living, to think so seems irrational and conceited to me, so I lean toward global warming being true.
So I would say to your question, I accept global warming as theory. I don't know for certain if it's happening or not, there is no way for me to tell. This is the same for you. It is simply impossible to know these things for certain. I do like to read challenging articles though and readily take them on board (which is why I thanked you for the NASA article and the one on fuel)...What made me engage in this debate was your willingness to completely dismiss the claims, which I still think is an irrational stance. It doesn't even seem to be climate skepticism, so much as climate hoax/conspiracy. Which I also believe is something impossible for you to be certain on.
My argument wasn’t very tactful but I wasn’t prepared for you guys to be so unwilling to listen.
At this point I must ask you how old you were in 1999 when this was published?
I lol'ed here. I also refuse to answer so you can use my age as justification for your argument. Your age doesn't make what you say anymore valid :facepalm: …The whole meteorology and climatology confusion has instilled doubts too great to just believe you on your word.
when the whole bullshit began I was already living over 2000 miles from my parents and functioning every day as an adult in society. In other words I remember this whole 23 year long attempt to put forth a faulty theory as hard fact.
Do you?
Well, no, but this does not make your claim any more valid either. Even you telling me this as fact makes me instantly start to question. Obviously there is a chance you are wrong, your refusal to acknowledge the uncertainty of your claims makes your entire argument seem off from the start...Not to say global warming/climate change is definitely true, but at least some people have access to enough resources and information to make an educated guess, instead of just going with the guys who predicted some completely unrelated events in the past that are more political than environmental in the first place. Step out of your own perspective for a second and read your posts over...Imagine how they seem to somebody without your 'knowledge'.
If I had met more people from your era who actually supported what you said, I would listen more, but as it is I haven't met anybody in real life (not a soul), or even on the internet other than Dirty Sanchez (who is the last person I’d trust), that supports your claims.
Sorry for the late reply. I've been at a music festival and have been too fucked up to post a proper reply...If you aren't TDR, don't bother reading. I wouldn't.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man...You’ve still failed to provide anything convincing. I'm going to rely on the guys who study these things for a living. If I ever find out they are all lying through their teeth, I will shut the hell up.
Why the anger? Do you normally react with hostility towards those who won't agree with you?
I'm a skeptic on most things, I find little point believing in anything I cannot see or completely comprehend. I am open to global warming being not all it’s cracked up to be, or even completely non-existent. I am going by my own research on the subject, as you are. But, I am not willing to run the risk that I know better than the people who study these phenomena for a living, to think so seems irrational and conceited to me, so I lean toward global warming being true.
So I would say to your question, I accept global warming as theory. I don't know for certain if it's happening or not, there is no way for me to tell. This is the same for you. It is simply impossible to know these things for certain.
Not if you have learned to see the patterns of other things that have been pulled in the past. While it may be true that you can not prove it (anymore than they can) there is a big difference between knowing something and proving it, just ask any cop.
I do like to read challenging articles though and readily take them on board (which is why I thanked you for the NASA article and the one on fuel)...What made me engage in this debate was your willingness to completely dismiss the claims, which I still think is an irrational stance. It doesn't even seem to be climate skepticism, so much as climate hoax/conspiracy. Which I also believe is something impossible for you to be certain on.
It is not so much that I have summarily dismissed anything you have presented in this conversation but more that I have seen it all before. You have to keep in mind I saw the beginning of "Global Warning" from a much different perspective than those of younger generations. I have had over two decades to consider the information on this topic. I have also enjoyed the advantage of seeing the information develop over time. So when I look back at the written record it is like looking at parts of my adult life. My oldest child was just about 8 or 9 years old when they first started talking about global warming. It is going to take a bit more than a couple of handfuls of posts on a forum over a month to convince me of something different than what I have come to understand over 3 decades.
My argument wasn’t very tactful but I wasn’t prepared for you guys to be so unwilling to listen.
I lol'ed here. I also refuse to answer so you can use my age as justification for your argument. Your age doesn't make what you say anymore valid :facepalm: …The whole meteorology and climatology confusion has instilled doubts too great to just believe you on your word.
There is no confusion on meteorology and climatology you are merely picking at straws in a end around ad hominem exercise with that comment. The difference between to two is just a matter of scale when you break it down. They both rely on the same type of data and technology. As above so below so to speak.
Well, no, but this does not make your claim any more valid either. Even you telling me this as fact makes me instantly start to question. Obviously there is a chance you are wrong, your refusal to acknowledge the uncertainty of your claims makes your entire argument seem off from the start...
I am not saying that your age or my age makes any claim more or less valid. I am saying I have a more concise perspective on the development of the Global Warming theory as I experienced the media's effort to put it forth as fact from day 1. The right there is one of the major reasons I know it is bullshit. When the media spends 30 years trying to put a theory forth as fact it means the game is on.
Please point out where I said there is no chance I am wrong. Hell there is a chance we are both wrong. But that does not prove the Global Warning theory.
Not to say global warming/climate change is definitely true, but at least some people have access to enough resources and information to make an educated guess, instead of just going with the guys who predicted some completely unrelated events in the past that are more political than environmental in the first place. Step out of your own perspective for a second and read your posts over...Imagine how they seem to somebody without your 'knowledge'.
But Global Warming is a political issue not a scientific issue. I don't need the breather but thanks for the offer. I already know how people slide, I am used to that, it still does not change what I know.
If I had met more people from your era who actually supported what you said, I would listen more, but as it is I haven't met anybody in real life (not a soul), or even on the internet other than Dirty Sanchez (who is the last person I’d trust), that supports your claims.
One of these days they know they better get goin'
Out of the door and down on the streets all alone.
If I had met more people from your era who actually supported what you said, I would listen more, but as it is I haven't met anybody in real life (not a soul), or even on the internet other than Dirty Sanchez (who is the last person I’d trust), that supports your claims.
funny because I've met plenty of people who don't believe in global warming. No need to trust me. I posted articles and sources in this thread that prove not all scientists believe in global warming as caused by man.
Why the anger? Do you normally react with hostility towards those who won't agree with you?
I wasn't angry when I wrote that...I'm saying that what you just said is purely your own opinion. The arrogance in your posts is quite annoying though.
"But, I am not willing to run the risk that I know better than the people who study these phenomena for a living"
Be careful, that is the trap.
So is living in a perpetual delusion.
Again it appears you think you know better than those who actually study these phenomena. Does that not seem a bit self-conceited to you? Looks like we're going in circles again. WEEEEEE!
Not if you have learned to see the patterns of other things that have been pulled in the past. While it may be true that you can not prove it (anymore than they can) there is a big difference between knowing something and proving it, just ask any cop.
Seriously dude? Stop fucking kidding yourself you crazy bastard. You don't KNOW these things for certain. To say you do makes me :facepalm:
Also, I am not angry, just exasperated and amused at your logic.
It is not so much that I have summarily dismissed anything you have presented in this conversation but more that I have seen it all before. You have to keep in mind I saw the beginning of "Global Warning" from a much different perspective than those of younger generations. I have had over two decades to consider the information on this topic. I have also enjoyed the advantage of seeing the information develop over time. So when I look back at the written record it is like looking at parts of my adult life. My oldest child was just about 8 or 9 years old when they first started talking about global warming. It is going to take a bit more than a couple of handfuls of posts on a forum over a month to convince me of something different than what I have come to understand over 3 decades.
:facepalm: ...This shit is hilarious.
YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST. You think you know better than them, you really have no idea. To say you KNOW these things is just absurd.
What have you got to lose by remaining open to global warming? Please tell me this!
There is no confusion on meteorology and climatology you are merely picking at straws in a end around ad hominem exercise with that comment. The difference between to two is just a matter of scale when you break it down. They both rely on the same type of data and technology. As above so below so to speak.
No confusion? Really? ...And stop whining about ad hominem, this is totse.
"But since those who do believe in GW/CM shout about the science of it riddle me this. How can a science that can't even be 100% certain as to whether or not it will rain on a given day in a given place be certain about anything on the scale involved in GW/CM?"
If you think anything in this statement is correct, it is only proof of your lack of understanding. That statement is so wrong it's funny.
I am not saying that your age or my age makes any claim more or less valid. I am saying I have a more concise perspective on the development of the Global Warming theory as I experienced the media's effort to put it forth as fact from day 1. The right there is one of the major reasons I know it is bullshit. When the media spends 30 years trying to put a theory forth as fact it means the game is on.
:facepalm:
Please point out where I said there is no chance I am wrong. Hell there is a chance we are both wrong. But that does not prove the Global Warning theory.
"The right there is one of the major reasons I know it is bullshit"
That was in your last paragraph...You are much too arrogant on this subject.
But Global Warming is a political issue not a scientific issue. I don't need the breather but thanks for the offer. I already know how people slide, I am used to that, it still does not change what I know.
Again, that is purely your own opinion. Until you gain the power of cosmic creation and being omnipresent, what you say is NOT truth. Keep coming up with interesting theories, by all means. Just don't go around preaching it like you know everything.
Comments
I deleted my post because I said just about the same thing as FON, and I didn't want it so seem like a circle-jerk.
I'm trying to say (In my inebriated state) that you're being taken in by the arguments and propaganda of industrialists and corporate news-men, rather than looking at the science of the matter. It doesn't make you a faggoty liberal or anything to admit the situation. Just someone who respects research.
That would be quite a trick on their part seeing as I don't watch the news or read the newspaper. I am basing my views on the patterns I have seen with my own eyes over the last almost 50 years. And I don't mean weather patterns either. I am talking about the manipulations that take place by the media over the masses for the gain of the industrialists.
It is the same industrialists that you incorrectly assume I have been taken in by that are propagating this whole hoax for their own monetary greed. So while you have glimpse the surface you have yet to open your eyes fully.
We're going in circles, here. I gave you some evidence (You refuse to read it. If you had, we wouldn't be in disagreement.), you call it bullshit from your high-horse (You know more than we'll ever will about the subject (Your eyes are open, ours closed), yet refuse to explain), you call bullshit, provide nothing to counter, and it continues on.
Why the hell did you make this thread?
So you can go on about how we've been fooled by Al Gore, and people trying to sell solar-panels??
Why do you know better than the scientific community?
As I have already shown not all of the scientific community agrees that global warming caused by man is real. Remember that scientists used to also believe in alchemy and that the earth was flat.
There is no such thing as "The Scientific Community". There are those who's research gets funded and published and those who's research is shoved in the trash heap when it does not support what the people supplying the funds need to have represented as the truth.
That has been taking place since even Tesla was crushed. Hell look at what Royal Raymond Rife was put through for daring to tell the truth when it did not fit in with the huge planned profits for modern medicine. I am really not trying to put anyone down or come of as "holier than thou" it is just that I have been alive long enough to see them switch the "truth" several times. Many here have not seen that with their own eyes. My real hope ITT is not to convince you now, but rather plant a seed that one day (in some who read this) will grow into a lens and a light with which those who dare someday to think for themselves may examine the world they find and grasp at many shards of truth in a sea of lies.
Yeah, I know that last bit was a bit Specyrptic but it really is difficult to share info like this with those who are not yet ready to stop sliding when presented with certain information. I know countless folks IRL who have had their eyes opened. They come in all walks of life and from all age groups. The one thing they all have in common is you don't have to explain it to them. They already understand what is really taking place vs what the media and government have presented as reality.
The bottom line is Global Warming data was cooked, they got busted for it, they changed it from Global Warming to Climate Change to distance the fabricated "event" from the cooked data, most of the folks who bought Global Warming are buying Climate Change (which they have to to avoid losing face over misplaced trust in their previous belief in Global Warming), and most of the folks who did not buy into Global Warming are not buying into Climate Change.
But since those who do believe in GW/CM shout about the science of it riddle me this. How can a science that can't even be 100% certain as to whether or not it will rain on a given day in a given place be certain about anything on the scale involved in GW/CM? In other words it is simply one theory and nothing has yet to be proven.
Glad I'm not alone on this.
So admittedly, you aren't basing your opinion on science, studies, or anything like that. I'm sorry but that just isn't credible, except maybe in the paranoid delusions forum. A conspiracy involving the media bribing thousands upon thousands of scientists to lie about climate change/global warming when we've been aware of it for over a hundred years just seems a bit unrealistic to me.
Hahahahaha!
I'd say our weather man is right at LEAST 90% of the time. There are huge amounts of recorded phenomena that correlate with global warming/climate change, you just choose to ignore them.
Saying the weather man isn't right 100% of the time, so the hundreds of climatologists studying the environment for decades must be full of shit is really quite absurd.
The issue here is that on a very deep level, he associates "belief" in climate change with liberals and democrats, and so he cannot bring himself to consider it seriously. It's all a scam to sell green-technology. :rolleyes:
So why was "global warming" changed to "climate change" almost immediately after evidence of cooked data was uncovered?
You mean in the "Climategate scandal", when, under further investigation, no wrong doing was found on the part of the scientists? Nothing was "cooked" or misrepresented whatsoever.
We have been over this in previous threads.
I see you are one of those types that comments on a post with an indication that the other person admitted something which they never touched on one way or the other to further your own position in a conversation.
Show me any TV weather man that has a 90% accuracy, except in a market like San Diego.
KFMB Evening News Anchor: "And now to our weather with Matt Baylow."
Matt: "Today's weather is nice, extremely nice until tomorrow with continued nice. Now back to you Bob."
Investigation by whom? Proven by whom?
Reviewed and specifically quoted by myself earlier in this thread.
Well in Australia the weather man goes a lot more in depth than 'the weather is nice, back to you bob' (I understand you may be exaggerating that a bit to make your point), as well as being accurate I'd say 90% of the time. Last year especially. The huge rain and flooding suffered in Brisbane was predicted well in advance, as was every other rainfall I remember watching the news for.
Perhaps I misunderstood you? Could you please explain the mechanics of how this global warming conspiracy works? Why do thousands of climatologists agree to posting false information?
EDIT: I also noticed this because the weather man talk got me pondering wtf predicting short-term weather has to do with long term climate effects.
You are confusing meteorology with climatology. LOL!
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
Global warming hysteria? Climate skeptic propaganda websites do not count as credible information...Neither does fox news.
DOUBLE EDIT: For the sake of not posting again, I thought I'd just edit it in here.
This is to clarify the difference between climate change and global warming. They are two clearly defined phenomena regarding two entirely separate types of environmental change. Each having their respective place within the media.
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2007/01-02/global-warming-vs-climate-change.htm
It also reinforces quite a bit of whats already been said.
Get this FON, all of the networks are part of the same lie factory.
Of course, as with all discussions with liberals the only credible sources are those which support their position. I'll tell you what FON you just go with your narrow field of view, just as your shepherds have bid you, and I will bask in the warmth of my own thoughts.
Have a nice day.
Omit the Al-Gore bit and answer my question, then.
Like I said, if you want to begin to understand who and what is behind it look to history and Brussels for a good solid foundation to begin your learning on.
EDIT: Hold on.
If you don't remotely give a fuck about the conclusions reached by the scientific community, what will convince you?
Anyway, it's a good thing that people like you don't usually have a say in the decision making process for dealing with these sorts of matters.
I already told you, there is no "scientific community". If "people like me" had more of a say in things there would be a lot less problems in this world and a lot more to go around. Your very labeling of me as "people like you" is proof positive that you have been conditioned my the media to slide whenever "people like me" present you with kernels of the truth.
I have lived long enough to know that nothing I can say here is going to unprogram you. But, I also know that I have planted many seeds ITT and who knows, maybe someday you will be one of the lucky ones who finds that something new and wonderful has taken root in your own mind, an original thought.
Plenty of scientists have rejected the idea of Global warming caused by man.Inb4Justanotherasshole completely ignores this post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734
http://www.petitionproject.org/
It's like when I used to get sucked into arguments with the likes of JFLC lol
So in other words you are just going to "slide" out as you have been conditioned by the media to do whenever you are faced with data that does not support what you have been told to believe?
Or did you often lose "arguments" to JLFC?
BTW, you are the only one arguing, I am just having a conversation.
If you at least knew the difference between meteorology and climatology I would be inclined to take you a bit more seriously. Or if you actually answered my questions instead of changing the subject.
"Could you please explain the mechanics of how this global warming conspiracy works? Why do thousands of climatologists agree to posting false information?"
It's lulzy seeing wiki pages, fox news and climate skeptic propaganda being cited as 'credible sources'. What planet are you guys on!?...Also, saying everybody that disagrees with you is brainwashed is fucking LOL. If anything, it just makes your position more doubtful. You don't know these people at all, stop being a conceited fool pretending you know so much about the inner workings of their mind. It does nothing for your argument.
And I'm not going to bother listing sources because every time somebody DOES, and it doesn't agree with what the skeptics are saying, it's instantly written off as useless. There is not much point to this thread. Just fun watching you guys flounder for information while simultaneously discrediting every piece of info that disagrees with you...
Climate skeptics: What WILL they come up with next?
Haha I know. It reminds me of arguing with ate...Somehow they just know better than us and we are expected to accept what they say as truth, without the need of anything more than their word.
Way to ignore 31,000 members of the "scientific community" that both you and JAA have been touting as end all and be all of this conversation. :facepalm:
Are you physically incapable of answering a direct question? It doesn't seem like you even read my post...
They are not the 'end all be all' as you put it...The scientific community (yes, there is such a thing as the scientific community :facepalm:) is simply the most CREDIBLE source on this subject. Somehow I trust 31000 scientists opinions over some delusional conspiracists on the internet who can't even distinguish between global warming and climate change or meteorology and climatology.
So in the same sentence you accept the findings of 31,000 scientists and detract from their findings by attacking me with ad hominem? I know the difference between global warming and climate change. I also know the difference for the purpose of this topic. Do you? These are both terms that were coined by those who would continue to propagate this hoax. When they were found out the changed the terminology from global warming to climate change in a lame attempt at damage control.
Which is it FON?
Do you dismiss the 31,000 scientists
Or do you accept that global warming/climate change is merely a theory at this point with no sound empirical evidence to to establish this theory as fact?
At this point I must ask you how old you were in 1999 when this was published?
Or how old were you in 1988 when James Hansen, whose 1988 pronouncements started the clamor for action to prevent global warming?
I ask these question regarding your age not as a lame attempt at ad hominem which has become the cornerstone of your attempt to "win" a conversation, but rather to point out that when the whole bullshit began I was already living over 2000 miles from my parents and functioning every day as an adult in society. In other words I remember this whole 23 year long attempt to put forth a faulty theory as hard fact.
Do you?
Will come back when I figure out how attacking you with ad hominem detracts anything from those 31000 scientists findings...I do apologize for my exasperation :fap:
EDIT: Thanks for posting the article. Curious as to when itself was published?
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man...You’ve still failed to provide anything convincing. I'm going to rely on the guys who study these things for a living. If I ever find out they are all lying through their teeth, I will shut the hell up.
I'm a skeptic on most things, I find little point believing in anything I cannot see or completely comprehend. I am open to global warming being not all it’s cracked up to be, or even completely non-existent. I am going by my own research on the subject, as you are. But, I am not willing to run the risk that I know better than the people who study these phenomena for a living, to think so seems irrational and conceited to me, so I lean toward global warming being true.
So I would say to your question, I accept global warming as theory. I don't know for certain if it's happening or not, there is no way for me to tell. This is the same for you. It is simply impossible to know these things for certain. I do like to read challenging articles though and readily take them on board (which is why I thanked you for the NASA article and the one on fuel)...What made me engage in this debate was your willingness to completely dismiss the claims, which I still think is an irrational stance. It doesn't even seem to be climate skepticism, so much as climate hoax/conspiracy. Which I also believe is something impossible for you to be certain on.
My argument wasn’t very tactful but I wasn’t prepared for you guys to be so unwilling to listen.
I lol'ed here. I also refuse to answer so you can use my age as justification for your argument. Your age doesn't make what you say anymore valid :facepalm: …The whole meteorology and climatology confusion has instilled doubts too great to just believe you on your word.
Well, no, but this does not make your claim any more valid either. Even you telling me this as fact makes me instantly start to question. Obviously there is a chance you are wrong, your refusal to acknowledge the uncertainty of your claims makes your entire argument seem off from the start...Not to say global warming/climate change is definitely true, but at least some people have access to enough resources and information to make an educated guess, instead of just going with the guys who predicted some completely unrelated events in the past that are more political than environmental in the first place. Step out of your own perspective for a second and read your posts over...Imagine how they seem to somebody without your 'knowledge'.
If I had met more people from your era who actually supported what you said, I would listen more, but as it is I haven't met anybody in real life (not a soul), or even on the internet other than Dirty Sanchez (who is the last person I’d trust), that supports your claims.
Why the anger? Do you normally react with hostility towards those who won't agree with you?
Be careful, that is the trap.
Not if you have learned to see the patterns of other things that have been pulled in the past. While it may be true that you can not prove it (anymore than they can) there is a big difference between knowing something and proving it, just ask any cop.
It is not so much that I have summarily dismissed anything you have presented in this conversation but more that I have seen it all before. You have to keep in mind I saw the beginning of "Global Warning" from a much different perspective than those of younger generations. I have had over two decades to consider the information on this topic. I have also enjoyed the advantage of seeing the information develop over time. So when I look back at the written record it is like looking at parts of my adult life. My oldest child was just about 8 or 9 years old when they first started talking about global warming. It is going to take a bit more than a couple of handfuls of posts on a forum over a month to convince me of something different than what I have come to understand over 3 decades.
There is no confusion on meteorology and climatology you are merely picking at straws in a end around ad hominem exercise with that comment. The difference between to two is just a matter of scale when you break it down. They both rely on the same type of data and technology. As above so below so to speak.
I am not saying that your age or my age makes any claim more or less valid. I am saying I have a more concise perspective on the development of the Global Warming theory as I experienced the media's effort to put it forth as fact from day 1. The right there is one of the major reasons I know it is bullshit. When the media spends 30 years trying to put a theory forth as fact it means the game is on.
Please point out where I said there is no chance I am wrong. Hell there is a chance we are both wrong. But that does not prove the Global Warning theory.
But Global Warming is a political issue not a scientific issue. I don't need the breather but thanks for the offer. I already know how people slide, I am used to that, it still does not change what I know.
funny because I've met plenty of people who don't believe in global warming. No need to trust me. I posted articles and sources in this thread that prove not all scientists believe in global warming as caused by man.
It is a political conspiracy, so either.
I wasn't angry when I wrote that...I'm saying that what you just said is purely your own opinion. The arrogance in your posts is quite annoying though.
So is living in a perpetual delusion.
Again it appears you think you know better than those who actually study these phenomena. Does that not seem a bit self-conceited to you? Looks like we're going in circles again. WEEEEEE!
Seriously dude? Stop fucking kidding yourself you crazy bastard. You don't KNOW these things for certain. To say you do makes me :facepalm:
Also, I am not angry, just exasperated and amused at your logic.
:facepalm: ...This shit is hilarious.
YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST. You think you know better than them, you really have no idea. To say you KNOW these things is just absurd.
What have you got to lose by remaining open to global warming? Please tell me this!
No confusion? Really? ...And stop whining about ad hominem, this is totse.
"But since those who do believe in GW/CM shout about the science of it riddle me this. How can a science that can't even be 100% certain as to whether or not it will rain on a given day in a given place be certain about anything on the scale involved in GW/CM?"
If you think anything in this statement is correct, it is only proof of your lack of understanding. That statement is so wrong it's funny.
:facepalm:
"The right there is one of the major reasons I know it is bullshit"
That was in your last paragraph...You are much too arrogant on this subject.
Again, that is purely your own opinion. Until you gain the power of cosmic creation and being omnipresent, what you say is NOT truth. Keep coming up with interesting theories, by all means. Just don't go around preaching it like you know everything.