Global Warming is over.

[gwb72tii]

THIS is whats wrong with climate change

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-requests-770-million-fight-global-warming-overseas

The USA has sooooooooooo much money we can't wait to give it away

[herbivor]

aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

well herbie, the rate of change has been zero to negative for the last 12 years

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...882984274.html

Actually that's not true. But who am I to argue with a prestigious WSJ editorial. I'm going to go plant my tomatoe plants now, a month earlier than normal. Should be a good year for vegetables.

[gwb72tii]

Actually that's not true. But who am I to argue with a prestigious WSJ editorial. I'm going to go plant my tomatoe plants now, a month earlier than normal. Should be a good year for vegetables.

open your eyes herb
i purposely quoted the Princeton Professor since he's not funded by oil
but he must be a "faux" scientist also

not only is it true that there has been no warming for over ten years from actual atmospheric data, you're scientists have been caught in email exchanges wondering how to hide/explain the data since it conflicts with their warming models

as the professor said, when your postulations are not supported, or are contradicted in this case, by the data, you have FAIL

[HarryPotter]

So basically herb tries to support this by science but when science doesn't support his claims then it's bullocks. Righteous.

[herbivor]

So basically herb tries to support this by science but when science doesn't support his claims then it's bullocks. Righteous.

Not at all. It's just that what they are presenting as science, isn't really science, though it's being sold to them as science. Just compare the link Farbin provided to the actual science journal I linked a few posts above. Can you spot the differences?

[dirtysix]

Stop arguing and just get on with it.

Winter's coming!

[gwb72tii]

Not at all. It's just that what they are presenting as science, isn't really science, though it's being sold to them as science. Just compare the link Farbin provided to the actual science journal I linked a few posts above. Can you spot the differences?

no, what you argue is not science, its the credibility of the opinion's source
there is no science that supports AGW, it is theory
and unfortunately for your side, almost no data that supports the theory
but apparently the theory is emough to convince you and others, but not everyone
when atmospheric scientists argue against AGW, they're deniers
deniers of what exactly? and unproven theory? conjecture by scientists sucking off the teat of taxpayers?

[gwb72tii]

this just in
Global Cooling on the way..........seriously

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/03/27/climate-obstinately-refuses-to-cooperate-with-global-warming-alarmists/

[Farbin Kaiber]

"But Forbes is an evil capitalist, not a credible resource." -herbivor

[joshh]

It snowed in Portland last week...in March. The sky is falling Liberals are getting more and more fun to laugh at.

[herbivor]

Just out of curiosity how much and what kind of evidence is required to convince you that GW is anthropogenic? Because you are at least admitting that GW is occurring (which your side was completely denying only a few years ago). But now what do you require to convince its man-made.

[gwb72tii]

Just out of curiosity how much and what kind of evidence is required to convince you that GW is anthropogenic? Because you are at least admitting that GW is occurring (which your side was completely denying only a few years ago). But now what do you require to convince its man-made.

let's start here
and I'll round up on numbers
anthro CO2 is 4% of annual CO2 emissions
IPCC et al want 20% reduction in anthro CO2
so if we gag and follow IPCC, wreck global economies etc, we get a net reduction of less than 1% in total annual CO2 emissions
and you're telling me that this is the answer
even though your models have not, so far, predicted anything accurately

as for a theory vs data, your models seek to predict the future based on a theory
no one will know until the future comes. eh?
so far yor side is batting 0.00
but you could still be right and we need to act now, correct?

but what if you're not correct?

[cale]

there is no science that supports AGW

Not sure if serious.

And you a layman cannot argue that less than 1% of a change will not be significant. In a lot of ecological systems, a 1% spike is monumental and reflects so in the species present. What puts you in a position to attempt to discredit real scientists who in fact say that small of a change would indeed have a serious impact, your unaccredited guess? Bold, real fucking bold.

[gwb72tii]

Not sure if serious.

And you a layman cannot argue that less than 1% of a change will not be significant. In a lot of ecological systems, a 1% spike is monumental and reflects so in the species present. What puts you in a position to attempt to discredit real scientists who in fact say that small of a change would indeed have a serious impact, your unaccredited guess? Bold, real fucking bold.

try reading up on the issue cale before you make yourself look foolish. again.

[herbivor]

let's start here
and I'll round up on numbers
anthro CO2 is 4% of annual CO2 emissions
IPCC et al want 20% reduction in anthro CO2
so if we gag and follow IPCC, wreck global economies etc, we get a net reduction of less than 1% in total annual CO2 emissions
and you're telling me that this is the answer
even though your models have not, so far, predicted anything accurately

as for a theory vs data, your models seek to predict the future based on a theory
no one will know until the future comes. eh?
so far yor side is batting 0.00
but you could still be right and we need to act now, correct?

but what if you're not correct?

None of that word salad answers my question. What evidence do you need that would convince you?