Global Warming is over.

[nando]

this just in: 38% of the general public are idiots.. news at 11. ;)

[Q5Quint]

Hate to double post but....




Check it out~ parts per million of co2 is higher than it has ever been for the last 700k YEARS. Methan is OFF THE DAMN CHART HIGHER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN 700k YEARS. So is nitrous oxide. But only in the last 200 years.....Odd eh? I wonder where those came from?

Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.

So during the last warming cycle 125k years ago the sea level rose about 4-6m and temps went up about 3-5deg C. This was because our orbit was closer to the sun.

So this go around 125k years later we are a bit further from the sun, but we have a shitton more greenhouse gasses han has ever existed in our atmosphere before. Last time we got a 3-5deg C rise in temp the ice melted and sea levels rose 4-6m.

Mofuckas be predicting 2-5deg C rise so what the fuck do you think will happen? Do you think the oceans will rise just like they did last time 125k years ago? Or do you think the world is only 6000 years old?

[frankenbeemer]

As stated before, I do not believe the 97% figure acurately portrays the position of the scientific community on AGW. At best it's a gross simplification, at worst an intentional deceit, and more importantly doesn't address the actual science.

the way we do science today--when issues compete with each other for monopoly funding by the federal government--creates a culture of exaggeration and a political community that then takes credit for having saved us from certain doom.

[herbivor]

^Way to not read my previous post. We can make up all kinds of fun ideas of reality with our imaginations.

[mrsleeve]

So there was never a drought, or periods of warmer time or cooler times before we humans inhabited the earth then right ????


Like I keep saying I dont deny we may be in warming phase, I blame the sun though, lets get the govt to pass laws to regulate its out put and force it to burn a inferior fuel that will damage it.

[cale]

So there was never a drought, or periods of warmer time or cooler times before we humans inhabited the earth then right ????

Are you really going to try and argue real evidence with your interpretation of reason? Bring something of substance to to the table, or don't bother showing up at all.

[mrsleeve]

simple Yes or No answer will suffice

Stupid statements like yours are further evidence as to the death of our friend common sense

[gwb72tii]

here it is in a nutshell and why, at 58, i don't believe 90% of the AGW camp

its obvious man has some influence

its also obvious and a undeniable fact that pro AGW scientists have been caught lying, exaggerating, and hiding data to support their models. emails are deleted, freedom of information requests are not fulfilled. it is also a fact their models are not for public scrutiny. this alone ends the argument for me.

funding for AGW comes solely from gov't sources, it is a very big business, very large dollar amounts. it creates an incentive to lie, cheat and manipulate to continue the funding.

it is also undeniable fact that the pro-AGW argument is used for political aims, namely at the UN and federal governments around. political aims that have nothing to do with AGW.

it is also fact there is no proof. that imminently qualified experts in climate science refute the pro AGW crowd science. that there is no 97% consensus on anything.

etc

[gwb72tii]

Nothing is 100% percent certain..... that is why it is a 'theory'...but once you cross the 90% pretty damn sure line we 'accept' those facts as being true to the cause.

careful, your on thin ice here according to kershaw

[cale]

Common sense has nothing to do with this, science works on what is measurable not the opinions of individuals and their "take" on it.

A simple yes or no would suffice, but you're going to run with. We both know that the climate changes, no one is arguing that. But if you think you can simply assume these changes have brought on by the same forces then you're an idiot, you cannot assume that. You're refusing to acknowledge the differences and merely looking at the similarities.

If you want to talk about application of common sense (or lack thereof) to science, lets look at the fact that sceptics fail miserably at swaying credited believers of the theory. So please, spare the attempts at belittlement. You are surely not in a position where you want to go there.

it is also fact

Please give me your paypal address. It's rather clear you're in desperate need of a dictionary, my treat. You still can't seem to grasp the meanings of simple words.

[2761377]

So, this isn't even that thinly veiled of an anti-science argument...

here are my postulates-

-normal scientific studies normally use double blind methodology to eliminate experimeter bias.

-AGW is untestable using this requirement.

- the scientific community has decided to suspend double blind methodology for this question.

the last postulate is the foundation of my doubt on AGW. you can produce all the research you like but you need to explain to me why these people have changed the game. a rational observer may infer other than scientific motivation to lessen a standard.

why argue science with people who may be using science selectively to advance their own politics? the 97% figure is all about the circle jerk.

hth
robert w.

[Fusion]

There are numerous historical examples of sea level rise even thousands of years before the industrial revolution. People have fled from areas after major natural destruction. What sleeve is saying is that that comic strip is just plain retarded, because we know as a fact that draughts have effected humans for as long as we've been on this planet. Connecting a current draught to the AGW idea is stupid, making it political even more so.

[gwb72tii]

and what is tragic is that if, and i mean if, AGW is real, the pro AGW camp has fucked up their side of the argument so badly that nobody believes them any longer

[cale]

why argue science with people who may be using science selectively to advance their own politics? the 97% figure is all about the circle jerk.

It's rather cute how all your beliefs fit the stereotypes of your political associations, being unique is overrated...yayyyy cookie cutter!

[mrsleeve]

There are numerous historical examples of sea level rise even thousands of years before the industrial revolution. People have fled from areas after major natural destruction. What sleeve is saying is that that comic strip is just plain retarded, because we know as a fact that draughts have effected humans for as long as we've been on this planet. Connecting a current draught to the AGW idea is stupid, making it political even more so.

I thought this is what I said. :crazy: