Congratulations for making my point for me.
"Inability to prove what happened billions of years ago" means we don't know jackshit about what happened back then, so we have nothing to compare these past 100 years to. 100 years is a tiny, tiny fraction of how long the Earth has been around. Not nearly enough to draw any conclusions about what is really a "natural" or "average" state of the earth. Even if the average temperature in every single city on Earth heated up by one degree per year for these last 100, it isn't nearly enough data to use to draw valid conclusions.
Like Joe said, it's the equivalent of comparing 30 seconds of a game to an entire season. By a global warming loon's logic, if a running back happens to break off a 90-yard touchdown run on the first play of the season, then that means that team will score the same touchdown on every single play for the remainder of the year. Doesn't work that way.
Like Joe said, it's the equivalent of comparing 30 seconds of a game to an entire season.
Even better, it would be the equivalent to comparing the time it takes the official to throw the ball up for tip to the total sum time of all the NBA games played over the course of the history of the NBA.
These morons actually pride themselves on rushing around arguing against these mythical conservatives who allegedly believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old while jumping up and down about 20 years of (mostly fake) temperature data.
And they lack the self awareness to realize this.
Even better, it would be the equivalent to comparing the time it takes the official to throw the ball up for tip to the total sum time of all the NBA games played over the course of the history of the NBA.
These morons actually pride themselves on rushing around arguing against these mythical conservatives who allegedly believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old while jumping up and down about 20 years of (mostly fake) temperature data.
And they lack the self awareness to realize this.
And it's finally been confirmed by science...
[h=1]Online internet trolls are psychopaths and sadists, psychologists claim[/h]
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/l...and-sadists-psychologists-claim-30017680.html
Anyway, here is how these "debate is over" scientists act when they think nobody is watching:
I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.
So they have this grand global warming discovery and mysteriously they don't want to share the data with anyone.
Totally the scientific method!
I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.
So they have this grand global warming discovery and mysteriously they don't want to share the data with anyone.
Totally the scientific method!
That does not prove that at all. And it's nothing like what Joe said, lol. You are much dumber than I thought. Almost the entire scientific community throughout the world agrees that humans have lead to an increase in global warming. The fact you claim to be educated yet use the argument that a billion years is a long time therefore they can't say for certain that global warming exists is embarrassing. Please ask for your money back.
http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...arsha-blackburn-climate-change-debate/358149/
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...n/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
^^^^^^^^ link stated that Lindzen has been the "wrongest the Longest" the other says something like he has made a career being wrong about climate science.
Lindzen ALSO BELIEVES THAT CIGARETTES DO NOT CAUSE CANCER. So this source is a little bit sketchy. The telling fact is that 97% climate scientists believe climate science is man made, where the other 3% do not.
I personally do not care if YOU believe in it or not. My problem is that people who are against it scoff and say "it's a left win hoax." Really, what are politicians suppose to do? Ignore 97% of climate scientists? Obama has the environmentalist support so he's got to go forward with this IMO. People aren't stupid because they believe scientists. I think it is kind of stupid to look at what the scientists say and call it a "hoax." Seems like the scientists have more evidence.
Now what are they going to do about it? Sadly the US alone will not be able to do much, it would have to be a global effort. How much do we throw at this thing right now? I don't have the answers, I don't have an opinion. I just don't like being called stupid when I believe scientists who know more about the subject than any of us
All it takes for conservatives is 1 scientist to claim something they want to believe and they will quote it as fact. The other 97% of scientists are part of a global conspiracy to fake that the Earth is warming so that government can shove energy policies down our throats, lol. That's how crazy they are.
Yeah that's a good point. If you look at the first link, the congress woman from Tennessee clearly had no clue. To be honest, I don't care who the politicians are, if it were democrats denouncing the scientist, I would say the same thing. The conservatives on this board would vote for Bin Laden over a democrat which is sad. I have enjoyed reading some old threads, haven't had much time to post.
My favorite is if you go back far enough, you'll see some of these guys talking about how amazing Bush was as a President and defending everything the Government did. But the second Bush left, Government bad!! Lol. Willie and Sheriff Joe were the worst. They were even accusing people saying the economy was about to collapse as frauds and partisans couple months before the economy collapsed. They are very ignorant people. Entertaining though. It's just funny how we are willing to admit that we are not climatologists and don't know for a fact whether climate change is real or not but we will listen to the scientific community. These guys have no doubt in their mind climate change is not real. They are all geniuses who know everything because they read it on some conservative blog.
I did read those, the Guesser brought them up. I read where some said in time Bush will be considered a good president. One said it sometimes takes several years after a presidency to be determined how good he was, but at same time is cracking Obama. I bet if you said wait 10 - 20 years on Obama, the conservatives would have a melt down.
A climate of fraud
New emails shed light on the global warming racket
The latest release of 5,000 emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) reconfirms what the 2009’s “Climategate” files established: Global warming is more fiction than science.
The basic problem with climate research is that it is at best soft science, and this leaked correspondence demonstrate just how unsettled it is. “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others,” one scientist wrote. “This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.” Nonsense, another concluded: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.” But what if the whole warming phenomenon is “mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?” one scientists muses. “They’ll kill us probably.”
The fact that different climate studies reach widely different conclusions is not surprising. Much of the global warming debate centers on the output of highly questionable computer models that conjure figures from scarcely understood variables, dubious raw data and gaping holes filled with assumptions that usually confirm the researchers’ biases. No wonder that even as reliable temperature measurements show global temperatures have flatlined or been falling for the past decade, claims of imminent catastrophe have grown more shrill. Garbage in, warming out.
None of this would matter outside the halls of academia except that this field’s activists have spent years lobbying governments to reorganize whole economies based on the sketchy results of their highly debatable models. “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group,” one scientist wrote, noting in another email that “the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” Those who disagreed with the warmist agenda were systematically excluded from high-level documents like the now-discredited 2007 report by the United Nations‘ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This and other “evidence” have been seized by popularizers like former Vice President Al Gore to foist distorted doomsday scenarios on innocent schoolchildren, panicky liberals and other credulous people.
Warmists dismiss the leaked emails or complain they have been taken out of context. Not so. Collectively, the emails provide evidence of various crimes against the scientific method, such as concealed or destroyed source data, selective measurement, predetermined conclusions, hidden funding sources and bowing to government influence. They knew they were doing wrong and sought to hide the evidence. “One way to cover yourself,” wrote professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, “would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.” Fortunately for science, Mr. Jones was, for once, correct.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/a-climate-of-fraud/#ixzz2tiVFJiDV
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
New emails shed light on the global warming racket
The latest release of 5,000 emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) reconfirms what the 2009’s “Climategate” files established: Global warming is more fiction than science.
The basic problem with climate research is that it is at best soft science, and this leaked correspondence demonstrate just how unsettled it is. “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others,” one scientist wrote. “This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.” Nonsense, another concluded: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.” But what if the whole warming phenomenon is “mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?” one scientists muses. “They’ll kill us probably.”
The fact that different climate studies reach widely different conclusions is not surprising. Much of the global warming debate centers on the output of highly questionable computer models that conjure figures from scarcely understood variables, dubious raw data and gaping holes filled with assumptions that usually confirm the researchers’ biases. No wonder that even as reliable temperature measurements show global temperatures have flatlined or been falling for the past decade, claims of imminent catastrophe have grown more shrill. Garbage in, warming out.
None of this would matter outside the halls of academia except that this field’s activists have spent years lobbying governments to reorganize whole economies based on the sketchy results of their highly debatable models. “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group,” one scientist wrote, noting in another email that “the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” Those who disagreed with the warmist agenda were systematically excluded from high-level documents like the now-discredited 2007 report by the United Nations‘ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This and other “evidence” have been seized by popularizers like former Vice President Al Gore to foist distorted doomsday scenarios on innocent schoolchildren, panicky liberals and other credulous people.
Warmists dismiss the leaked emails or complain they have been taken out of context. Not so. Collectively, the emails provide evidence of various crimes against the scientific method, such as concealed or destroyed source data, selective measurement, predetermined conclusions, hidden funding sources and bowing to government influence. They knew they were doing wrong and sought to hide the evidence. “One way to cover yourself,” wrote professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, “would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.” Fortunately for science, Mr. Jones was, for once, correct.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/a-climate-of-fraud/#ixzz2tiVFJiDV
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
As you can see from this sweltering heat... the Vice President is right: The climate of our country and our globe is changing. The globe is warming."
[SIZE=-2]-President Clinton at a speech before the American Federation of Teachers in New Orleans, July 21, 1998
[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]I'm just glad that idiot didn't use anecdotes to talk about this "fact"![/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]-President Clinton at a speech before the American Federation of Teachers in New Orleans, July 21, 1998
[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]I'm just glad that idiot didn't use anecdotes to talk about this "fact"![/SIZE]
The Germans bought into the whole Climate Fraud and restructured parts of their economy around it. Now their citizens can't keep up with the government's "necessarily skyrocketing" energy prices.
Another Big Government boondoggle...and the ideological loons on the left want to do the same thing here.
Listen to Climate Frauds? They should all be fired!
