Global Warming is over.

[rwh11385]

Read through Mother Jones...the site is a heavy liberal bias. No wonder Rhw is linking from there.

So should I not read it and evaluate it because of where it was from?

One of the most conservative friends I know shared it. If a liberal site said studies pointed to the Earth was round would that make it wrong? Maybe consider the quality of information and don't be so limited in your mindset. It perserves your ignorance.

[gwb72tii]

So should I not read it and evaluate it because of where it was from?

One of the most conservative friends I know shared it. If a liberal site said studies pointed to the Earth was round would that make it wrong? Maybe consider the quality of information and don't be so limited in your mindset. It perserves your ignorance.

says the guy who dismisses heartland, zerohedge and fox news
LOL

[nando]

says the guy who dismisses heartland, zerohedge and fox news
LOL

uhm. really?

this thread is just pointless now. I guess you think lead is safe too? why don't you go eat some lead paint chips? I hear they're good for you!

unless faux news tells you it's true, you won't believe it?

actually, you probably didn't even read it. be honest.

[Q5Quint]

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/17...3-173-2012.pdf

Good find~ I enjoy reading papers on climate science written by professors of economics.

On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcings might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.

Interesting find. So economists think anthro co2 might have had a temporary effect on global temperature. Lets look at another paper from the same website written by meteorologist:

The influence of vegetation dynamics on anthropogenic climate change

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/233/2012/esd-3-233-2012.html

It seems like their model with no anthro co2 keeps global temps the same at about 57 degrees f, but both models including it bump us up 10 degrees to 67 degrees f by 2100, increasing our tree vegitation by 4 fold and decreasing our deserts by 4 fold (I assume hotter actually means more evaporation and more rain, not just a hotter desert). Imagine that. Looks like that is about when we will hit 1000ppm co2 as well. neat.

Not that I trust german meteorologists over jewish economists on issues of weather and climate or anything like that, but that's just me.

Wait till you realize that even if we stop all emissions at 2100 our temperature will remain that high for another 200+ years. aw shit.

The economist paper is interesting too because it is trying to find a statistical correlation, or rather prove the lack of one, in co2 and temperature.

If on the other hand, the residuals
are nonstationary, the residuals do not mean-revert to
zero, the time series do not share a common trend, and the
relationship between them is spurious because the time series
are not cointegrated. Indeed, the R2 from a regression
between nonstationary time series may be as high as 0.99,
yet the relation may nonetheless be spurious.

So even if you have a 99% seemingly true correlation it still might not be true. Which is true but where do you draw the line?

I actually really like economists- I shared an office with one while I was working at the university. Crazily smart in a crazy statistics sort of way~ but their paper still says this:

Panel c clearly shows that there is a positive relationship
between temperature and the change in the anthropogenic
anomaly once the warming effect of solar irradiance is taken
into consideration.
Currently, most of the evidence supporting AGW theory
is obtained by calibration methods and the simulation
of GCMs. Calibration shows, e.g. Crowley (2000), that to
they check whether the effect is spurious12. The implication
of our results is that the permanent effect is not statistically
significant. Nevertheless, there seems to be a temporary anthropogenic
effect. If the effect is temporary rather than permanent,
a doubling, say, of carbon emissions would have
no long-run effect on Earth’s temperature, but it would increase
it temporarily for some decades. Indeed, the increase
in temperature during 1975–1995 and its subsequent stability
are in our view related in this way to the acceleration in
carbon emissions during the second half of the 20th century
(Fig. 2). The policy implications of this result are major since
an effect which is temporary is less serious than one that is
permanent.

So the economist paper says human caused global warming is temporary and not permanent. Great! Can we agree to do something about it now?

[herbivor]

^oh snap. I was going to point out the economist source too, but getting tired of arguing with idiots. Thanks for your response, though the people that need to hear it are deaf.

[gwb72tii]

So the economist paper says human caused global warming is temporary and not permanent. Great! Can we agree to do something about it now?

why?

[gwb72tii]

uhm. really?

this thread is just pointless now. I guess you think lead is safe too? why don't you go eat some lead paint chips? I hear they're good for you!

unless faux news tells you it's true, you won't believe it?

actually, you probably didn't even read it. be honest.

give me a break nando
every single link i've posted has been shot down by the likes of you because of the source, not the science.
and now you want to cry foul?

cry me a river.

[cale]

every single link i've posted has been shot down by the likes of you because of the source, not the science.

Post #1438 responds to this quite well, you most certainly do receive replies to the science you bring up.

Your post #1241 was replied to with data showing how your source is indeed incorrect on the claim that 16 years have past with no warming. You were met anything but being shot down for your source and then you have the audacity to reply to those responses with.

so are you, or are you not, going to try and discredit the scientists who do not depend on taxpayer dollars for their living, who do not swallow the non science you all spew, which i conveniently provided for you?

You want us to refute the science, but here you expected us to refute the source......you're a basket case. You get EXACTLY what you ask for, and then a few weeks later complain that you never got it.

Alzheimer's is kicking in, isn't it?

[MAXELHOFF]

I'm gonna take my clothes off.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

[gwb72tii]

Post #1438 responds to this quite well, you most certainly do receive replies to the science you bring up.

Your post #1241 was replied to with data showing how your source is indeed incorrect on the claim that 16 years have past with no warming. You were met anything but being shot down for your source and then you have the audacity to reply to those responses with.



You want us to refute the science, but here you expected us to refute the source......you're a basket case. You get EXACTLY what you ask for, and then a few weeks later complain that you never got it.

Alzheimer's is kicking in, isn't it?

not so fast hoser
your post 1438 was a meandering attempt at a rebuttal by.......you. sorry, doesn't quite measure up.
and 1241 and rwh's post's on NASA only bring up one indisputable fact, that is...............drumroll......................the re is no.........................consensus.

[cale]

and 1241 and rwh's post's on NASA only bring up one indisputable fact, that is...............drumroll......................the re is no.........................consensus.

You source hinged on the claim that no warming has occured in the past 16 years, a flat out lie which the following posts pointed out as utter horse shit by presenting the facts as they are, that warming has indeed occured. You now claim that no one responds to the science you present. Do you even understand how utterly stupid that is?

1438 was an excellent response to your claims that you do not get sufficient responses to your data. It pointed out that you indeed do get responses, but then you go ahead and claim once again that you don't?

that is...............drumroll......................the re is no.........................consensus.

You cited a source, we shut it down based on the inaccuracies found in it and not solely the individuals or the host of the information....what exactly more do you expect? Do you pose your questions with only one potential response in mind, and if you don't receive you make these wild accusations of not being responded to sufficiently? You get EXACTLY what you ask for, and now you're claiming you don't. You're an idiot.

[rwh11385]

says the guy who dismisses heartland, zerohedge and fox news
LOL

Um. I like facts and the truth. I will read Fox News articles if someone posts them, but get sick of all the biased bull so then I go to the actual source of facts without the opinions. ZeroHedge... super biased and inspired by a psychopath, few facts and not really honest to reality.

Like my example, I tend to stop listening to someone about science if they claim that the world is flat and everyone who says it is round were wrong.

Maybe if you cared about the truth and facts and thought for yourself instead of being a parrot of someone else's opinion then you could know the difference between facts and opinion.

uhm. really?

this thread is just pointless now. I guess you think lead is safe too? why don't you go eat some lead paint chips? I hear they're good for you!

unless faux news tells you it's true, you won't believe it?

actually, you probably didn't even read it. be honest.

It's been mostly pointless because one side is about denial and fighting science which makes a useful conservation near impossible.

I think the research explains gwb a bit, especially if he grew up in a densely populated city - and ate paint chips as a child.

[Q5Quint]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

A warmer climate = crazy shitstorms as illustrated by the last 10 years.

Also emissions = I cant eat fish out of my own lake and my kids will probably be retarded mongaloids from all the lead you are throwing into the air.

I cant figure out why the fuck people are against this stuff.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.



So here is an accusation. I want to curb emissions and pollution to create a better, safer world for my kids. How will not doing anything and carrying on as usual do that? We already can't eat our fish, so where do you draw the line? We cant even swim in our rivers because of a flesh eating bacteria that feeds of off.... hog farm effluent.

You pretty much have to agree to cut pollution and emissions or you are a complete dick who deserves to get lead poisoning and have your limbs rot off from fishteria spores.

http://www.wwaytv3.com/2012/08/13/man-dies-after-contracting-flesh-eating-bacteria-water-near-state-line#comment-184045

People are dying and getting limbs amputated, and I would really like my kids to be able to catch and eat fish without fear of lead poisoning. That is why we have to do something.

[herbivor]

People are dying and getting limbs amputated, and I would really like my kids to be able to catch and eat fish without fear of lead poisoning. That is why we have to do something.

Not eating fish may help with that;) Not eating animals in general would have a huge positive environmental impact if everyone did it. But that's for another thread...

[z31maniac]

Not eating fish may help with that;) Not eating animals in general would have a huge positive environmental impact if everyone did it. But that's for another thread...

Animals are tasty. Fuck 'em for being lower on the food chain.

(We do eat veggie a few meals a week though)