Global Warming is over.

[Q5Quint]

[nando]

yep, we're definitely in a global cooling period

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19330307

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/06/25/sea_level_rising_3_4_times_faster_along_east_coast_than_globally_government_report_finds/

when you deniers wake up to reality, let me know.

[gwb72tii]

ok Q5, nando and herb
let's get you all on the record shall we?

which of you believe mann and his hockey stick theory? (sorry for misusing this term kershaw)

[nando]

What does the theory matter when you don't even see the facts staring at you in the face?

funny how a google search comes up with about 30 climage change denial websites. And when you finally find a scientific publication, rather than some uneducated tard's political blog, you see the data for what it is.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick

[gwb72tii]

What does the theory matter when you don't even see the facts staring at you in the face?

answer the question

[nando]

yes, I believe the 97% of edjucated climatologists that do not agree with all the conspiracy theory uneducated wackos.

[gwb72tii]

your evading the question as i thought you might mr moderator
do you agree with mann's hockey stick?

[nando]

I said I agreed with the scientists. I thought it was obvious.

I'd like to know what being a moderator has to do with my personal opinions. :p

[cale]

your evading the question as i thought you might mr moderator
do you agree with mann's hockey stick?

Why is it that you think one individuals work discredits (not admitting it's wrong) the overwhelming majority who've came to the same conclusion through their own hard work? Typical behavior of the desperate, latch onto something and not let go.

[Fusion]

I would ask differently:
If indeed the AGW idea is true, why is there a need for creating false graphs, speculative projections and fraudulant studies?

Disproving AGW isn't a matter of creating more fraudulant studies to prove a point. Anti-AGW points out the fraud and illogical connections made by the AGW group. If the dinosaur era climate study was meant to be serious, and logically proved that life can easily exist in much higher temperatures (and lower ones) than the whole debate is about the past 90 years. Problem with those 90 years is that there is a temp dip around the 70s that was then thought to be the beginning of an ice-age aka global cooling.
Therefor even the media has been careful to now call it climate change = any situation can be misused and ill intentions can be pardoned.
Also, regarding sea-level rise, the whole idea is very egoistic. Sea level change has been happening for millions of years and is no problem for the earth. Just go to any rocky beach and look. Yes, species may die, that has also been happening for millions of years. Noone can say if level rise will/would've happened had we still been living in caves and eating roots in the past 100 years. We only notice these things because they are a threat to us (or those who live on coasts) and our goverments' "bank accounts".
Proof of this egoism is the plastic shit in the Pacific, obviously caused by humans, obviously with (amost) zero fucks given, because that doesn't make people all itchy like level-rise. If the "plastic ocean" was as important to anyone as it is creating idiotic taxes, regulations, and spending because of AGW policies, shouldn't there be taxes and regulations on people buying drinks in small containers that are thrown away within an hour after purchase?

[herbivor]

your evading the question as i thought you might mr moderator
do you agree with mann's hockey stick?

The answer is yes and because there are about a couple dozen similar hockey stick graphs based on different types of data sources that essentially say the same thing as Mann's graph. Mann's graph had limited data at the time, because it was done almost a decade ago, which is what the deniers are harping on " too much fudge factor". But continual data that followed and continues to come in confirms the graph. I actually provided a very lengthy discussion on this before and gave you all the facts, data and graphs, but as usual you don't read. So fuck off until you actually learn something new instead of repeating outdated rhetoric that you so desperately cling to and badgering those that may not be as well versed on this subject.

[Fusion]

^
Do any of your continual hockey sticks take into account the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age?
You confirm the original graph had limited data, ie. has also been shown to be fraudulant, can you stand behind the consequences that that study has lead to?

[nando]

All of what you have just posted simply isn't true, it's the same tired, incorrect and long ago discredited argument. Even more every year new data is collected.

[Fusion]

Which part isn't true? A asked questions.

[nando]

There was never any fraud