or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another Nail in the AGW Coffin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another Nail in the AGW Coffin - Page 3

post #81 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Except, those who truly understand climate science--the experts who spend their lives researching it--have reached an overwhelming consensus backed by mountains of evidence.  

 

 

False.  First, the central claims of AGW (namely that the Earth is abnormally warming and that Co2 and other gases are to blame) have not been shown to be credible.  What we have are predictions of future warming.  Secondly, on the notion of "consensus", Jazz says it best:  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The consensus never existed. It was a fabrication, a myth perpetuated not by scientists, but by political activists and politicians. Science IS skepticism.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

 

IMO, not quite. Science as currently practised is based on a consensus of sorts. The skepticism is disproving the consensus, but much research can be done in line with testing hypotheses in line with the consensus. Nothing is ever supposed to be "proven" in Science, merely the consensus is what is not majorly disproven.

 

For example, a fetal stem cell can become a brain cell or a muscle cell. This is a general consensus, because it has not been conclusively disproven, ie, no one has shown that you can conclusively extract a fetal stem cell that is 99% destined to become a brain cell... This is just as a general example, I'm sure neurobiologists may chime in. But generally you want to find out what exactly causes a stem cell to become a brain cell, what I call, in line with the consensus that the fetal stem cell can become anything, we just need to know what causes what.

 

So there is a consensus in that line of enquiry.

 

If one were a kind of skeptic, you could say, well, maybe the fetal stem cell is told by the "soul" of the fetus to become a brain cell. That is not disproven, but there is no ~evidence~ of that.

 

 

I don't think he's arguing that scientific consensus does not exist in general.  He's arguing that there is no scientific consensus on global warming.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #82 of 244

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/06/22/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-stronger-and-stronger/

 

 

 

Quote:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and

(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

 

 

Scientific consensus exists on global climate change.  You don't want it to, but it does.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

 

 

 

Quote:

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

 

Stop repeating your lies, SDW. 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #83 of 244

I look at it this way. 

 

Is some of the talk about the environment just FUD. Sure

Is some of it totally politically and financially motivated. Hell yeah it is. 

 

Should we just stop caring or doing anything about it. No. We should still be looking at getting off our dependence on oil, especially since that means not being held hostage by the countries that produce a huge chunk of it. We should give a crap about the gases we put in the air because they can result in our kids having asthma etc in much higher rates. That it also means the polar ice caps don't melt is just an added benefit. We should come up with ways to be more self sustaining so that when a hurricane knocks out a power plant homes can get some level of power from the solar panels on their roofs etc. Gardening might seem like some twee environment thing but it is also veggies you know what has been on them, it's exercise, it's a learning experience that gets your kids away from the xbox that is a factor in making them fat (the snacks they eat at the same time being another factor). 

 

and so on. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #84 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/06/22/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-stronger-and-stronger/

 

 

 

 

 

Scientific consensus exists on global climate change.  You don't want it to, but it does.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

 

 

 

 

Stop repeating your lies, SDW. 

 

Yes, there is a consensus amongst those who say there is a consensus.   Imagine that.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #85 of 244

But BR...the sole arbiter of how scientific anything or anyone here is, isn't making a very scientific argument it seems with his constant appeal to "scientific consensus."

 

 

Quote:
Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #86 of 244
Not by itself. Someone just selectively quoted, cherry picked if you will, from an entry that actually supports what I contend. What a douchebaggy thing to do. Shame.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #87 of 244

Yet the alleged existence of a "scientific consensus" that AGW is a threat has been your only consistent argument. Well that, and a lot of ad-hominem attacks, insults, and profanity.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #88 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Not by itself. Someone just selectively quoted, cherry picked if you will, from an entry that actually supports what I contend. What a douchebaggy thing to do. Shame.

 

So you are incapable of refraining from name-calling. Got it. No, that entry does not support what you are doing. You run around shouting "scientific consensus" all the time ignoring the unscientific nature of what you're doing.

 

But enough of that, how abouts we take a closer look at this scientific consensus thing, shall we?

 

Let's start with irony and hypocrisy:

 

 

Quote:
Consider the overwhelming consensus among researchers that biotech crops are safe for humans and the environment—a conclusion that is rejected by the very environmentalist organizations that loudly insist on the policy relevance of the scientific consensus on global warming. But I digress.

 

But, yes, this is a digression. Let's move on:

 

 

 

Quote:
One of the first instances of the uses of the phrase appears in the July 1, 1979 issue of The Washington Post on the safety of the artificial sweetener saccharin. “The real issue raised by saccharin is not whether it causes cancer (there is now a broad scientific consensus that it does)” (parenthetical in original) reported the Post. The sweetener was listed in 1981 in the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens as a substance reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. Interesting. Thirty years later, the National Cancer Institute reports that “there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans.” In light of this new scientific consensus, the sweetener was delisted as a probable carcinogen in 2000.

 

 

Quote:
Similarly, the Post reported later that same year (October 6, 1979) a “profound shift” in the prevailing scientific consensus about the causes of cancer. According to the Post, researchers in the 1960s believed that most cancers were caused by viruses, but now diet was considered the far more important factor. One of the more important findings was that increased dietary fiber appeared to reduce significantly the incidence of colon cancer. Twenty years later, a major prospective study of nearly 90,000 women reported, “No significant association between fiber intake and the risk of colorectal adenoma was found.” In 2005, another big study confirmed that “high dietary fiber intake was not associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer.” While dietary fiber may not prevent colon cancer, it is associated with lower cardiovascular risk.

 

 

Quote:
The December 17, 1979 issue of Newsweek reported that the Department of Energy was boosting research spending on fusion energy reactors based on a scientific consensus that the break-even point—that a fusion reactor would produce more energy than it consumes—could be passed within five years. That hasn’t happened yet and the latest effort to spark a fusion energy revolution, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, will not be ready for full-scale testing until 2026.

 

But closer to the topic of climate issues:

 

 

Quote:
In the years prior to 1985, several publications reported the scientific consensus that acid rain emitted by coal-fired electricity generation plants belching sulfur dioxide was destroying vast swathes of forests and lakes in the eastern United States. For example, the March 10, 1985 New York Times cited environmental lawyer Richard Ottinger, who asserted that there is a “broad scientific consensus'' that acid rain is destroying lakes and forests and ''is a threat to our health.'' In 1991, after 10 years and $500 million, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program study (as far as I can tell that report is oddly missing from the web) actually reported, according to a 1992 article in Reason: “The assessment concluded that acid rain was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems. The report also concluded that acid rain helped acidify only a fraction of Northeastern lakes and that the number of acid lakes had not increased since 1980.” Nevertheless, Congress passed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that regulate sulfur dioxide emissions through a cap-and-trade scheme. Acid rain was clearly causing some problems, but was not the wide-scale environmental disaster that had been feared.

 

 

 

And finally, most importantly:

 

Quote:
So what to make of this increase in the use of the concept of “scientific consensus?” After all, several scientific consensuses before 1985 turned out to be wrong or exaggerated, e.g., saccharin, dietary fiber, fusion reactors, stratospheric ozone depletion, and even arguably acid rain and high-dose animal testing for carcinogenicity. One reasonable response might be that anthropogenic climate change is different from the cited examples because much more research has been done. And yet. One should always keep in mind that a scientific consensus crucially determines and limits the questions researchers ask. And one should always worry about to what degree supporters of any given scientific consensus risk succumbing to confirmation bias. In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #89 of 244
Bullshit. I've linked to the science and corrected your misconceptions. You just don't fucking change your mind when confronted with evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #90 of 244
MJ, call me when you stop cherry picking your evidence and acknowledge the reality of evolution. You ignore the evidence. You ignore the predictions that have been confirmed. You ignore the consensus. You are a lost cause and should not teach your denial of reality to children.

And again, if only you would turn this cherry picking microscope back ob your own beliefs you hold dear. You believe in a magic invisible sky daddy but won't acknowledge Chromosome 2.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #91 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

MJ, call me when you stop cherry picking your evidence and acknowledge the reality of evolution.

 

lol.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You ignore the evidence. You ignore the predictions that have been confirmed. You ignore the consensus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You believe in a magic invisible sky daddy but won't acknowledge Chromosome 2


Of course not. Stop lying.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You are a lost cause and should not teach your denial of reality to children.

 

I'll teach my children the truth and you teach your children whatever makes you feel good. And how about we let all parents chose what their children are taught? How's that?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #92 of 244
Nope, you shouldn't. Look up Chromosome 2. Its origins could have falsified evolution. It confirmed a common ancestor between humans and the rest of the great apes instead.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #93 of 244

Stay on topic, BR. AGW skeptics know as much about science as the believers, which directly challenges your repeated claims that anyone who doesn't believe the decrees of your beloved "scientific consensus" are idiots, fools, heretics, dupes, etc.

 

The irony is apparent. You refuse to accept the results of this study while in the same breath accusing AGW skeptics of refusing to accept the results of scientific study.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #94 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Nope, you shouldn't.

 

Thanks for telling me what I should or shouldn't do with my children. No doubt you'd like to enforce your beliefs against me using force.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Look up Chromosome 2. Its origins could have falsified evolution. It confirmed a common ancestor between humans and the rest of the great apes instead.

 

And, in your view, this proves evolution as you understand it?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #95 of 244
It's one good example of MANY that support evolution. It just happens to be an easy one to understand.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #96 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It's one good example of MANY that support evolution. It just happens to be an easy one to understand.

 

OK. But doesn't prove it.

 

It is a fact or piece of evidence that supports the belief that evolution has occurred as you think. That's fair.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #97 of 244

There's prove and prove.  Using the word "prove" as it is in the common vernacular, evolution has easily been proven many times over.  In the scientific sense, evolution is one of the most thoroughly tested and well supported theories (again, theory in the scientific sense--an explanation of a natural law, not a hypothesis) in existence.  I know you feel like you are winning some major point here in me saying that Chromosome 2 doesn't prove evolution--but you aren't.  If the prediction about Chromosome 2 were wrong, it would have completely changed our understanding and very much undermined evolution as a whole.  The prediction wasn't wrong.  You demanded testable predictions.  Here's an example of a MAJOR one.  Change your opinion based on new evidence and move on.  I will not deride you for that.  I will deride you for maintaining your nonsensical beliefs even after seeing the evidence against them.

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #98 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

There's prove and prove.  Using the word "prove" as it is in the common vernacular, evolution has easily been proven many times over.  In the scientific sense, evolution is one of the most thoroughly tested and well supported theories (again, theory in the scientific sense--an explanation of a natural law, not a hypothesis) in existence.

 

I understand what you believe. The fact is the evolution has not been proven. There is much evidence that supports an interpretation of evolution as an explanation. I will grant that.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Change your opinion based on new evidence and move on.

 

But the evidence has not given me reason to change my opinion. It is not inconsistent with my interpretations and beliefs. So there's nothing for me to change.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #99 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Yet the alleged existence of a "scientific consensus" that AGW is a threat has been your only consistent argument. Well that, and a lot of ad-hominem attacks, insults, and profanity.

 

 

This is an excellent point.  Screaming "scientific consensus" also serves to steer the conversation away from what should be some very plain facts about "global warming."   

 

1.  Elevated levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" (Co2 in particular) have not been shown to cause warming.   There is merely a correlation, with Co2 actually lagging temperature increases.  

 

2.  The Earth is not warming abnormally.  We've warmed less than one degree in the last 100 years.  There is nothing to suggest this is out of the ordinary, much less harmful.   

 

3.  GAT is an extremely complicated data point with a large number of variables.  There are all sorts of adjustments/sampling that go into it.  With such a large number of variables (urban heat island effect, location of sensors, outright malfunction of sensors, collection/tabulation errors to name a few), it's questionable whether the number of is A) accurate and B) meaningful.  What we do know is that despite techniques like ice core sampling, we really cannot tell to within one tenth of one degree what the GAT was past, say, 150 years ago.  And even during the age of mechanical records, our equipment was not accurate enough to enable us to look at temperature increases of .6-.8 degrees.  We can estimate, and estimate very well...but it's still just that.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #100 of 244

SDW, let's tackle these things one at a time.  Your understanding of CO2 lag is an intentional distortion perpetuated by deniers.  I don't believe you have all the facts, so I expect when you are presented with them, you will drop the C02 lag from your repertoire of arguments against AGCG.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

 

 

Quote:

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

 

2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship.  They found that:

  • The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic.
  • This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans.
  • This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.  The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.
  • The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.

 

Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurred after the CO2 increase (Figure 2).

 

Please stop repeating your misunderstanding of CO2 lag from now on.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #101 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

I look at it this way. 

 

Is some of the talk about the environment just FUD. Sure

Is some of it totally politically and financially motivated. Hell yeah it is. 

 

Should we just stop caring or doing anything about it. No. We should still be looking at getting off our dependence on oil, especially since that means not being held hostage by the countries that produce a huge chunk of it. We should give a crap about the gases we put in the air because they can result in our kids having asthma etc in much higher rates. That it also means the polar ice caps don't melt is just an added benefit. We should come up with ways to be more self sustaining so that when a hurricane knocks out a power plant homes can get some level of power from the solar panels on their roofs etc. Gardening might seem like some twee environment thing but it is also veggies you know what has been on them, it's exercise, it's a learning experience that gets your kids away from the xbox that is a factor in making them fat (the snacks they eat at the same time being another factor). 

 

and so on. 

 

Bingo. The common values are what is important. For example, Do you want free unlimited energy for the rest of human history, and be independent of lunatic countries holding your way of life to ransom? Who the hell would say no to that???

 

When the "right wing" stops having their fit, we can actually sit down and see what common sense dictates. Surely, all of us in sound mind want clean air, clean water, healthy kids, a healthy body, affordable, unlimited, responsible energy. Nobody is asking the "right" to suddenly all dress in hemp and smoke weed all day and drink their piss to save the world.

 

We don't need to save the world, it's been fine for, oh, a few billion years, and it will be fine for a few billion more. 

 

We need to save ~ourselves~. Look at obesity, cancer, chronic diseases, etc. Mental illness is an unprecedented epidemic throughout all countries in the world.

 

The Science is clear. We're living longer, but we're not living ~healthier~... So, what's up with that? Not saving the world, but saving ourselves is the key.

post #102 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

I look at it this way. 

 

Is some of the talk about the environment just FUD. Sure

Is some of it totally politically and financially motivated. Hell yeah it is. 

 

Should we just stop caring or doing anything about it. No. We should still be looking at getting off our dependence on oil, especially since that means not being held hostage by the countries that produce a huge chunk of it. We should give a crap about the gases we put in the air because they can result in our kids having asthma etc in much higher rates. That it also means the polar ice caps don't melt is just an added benefit. We should come up with ways to be more self sustaining so that when a hurricane knocks out a power plant homes can get some level of power from the solar panels on their roofs etc. Gardening might seem like some twee environment thing but it is also veggies you know what has been on them, it's exercise, it's a learning experience that gets your kids away from the xbox that is a factor in making them fat (the snacks they eat at the same time being another factor). 

 

and so on. 

 

Bingo. The common values are what is important. For example, Do you want free unlimited energy for the rest of human history, and be independent of lunatic countries holding your way of life to ransom? Who the hell would say no to that???

No one would say no to it which is why it is in no form or fashion tied to global warming, nor should one be conflated with the other.

 

There is a reason we use oil and gas. There is a reason we haven't "kicked" our dependence on them and it has nothing to do with our desires for the state of the planet or big, bad corporations.

Quote:

When the "right wing" stops having their fit, we can actually sit down and see what common sense dictates. Surely, all of us in sound mind want clean air, clean water, healthy kids, a healthy body, affordable, unlimited, responsible energy. Nobody is asking the "right" to suddenly all dress in hemp and smoke weed all day and drink their piss to save the world.

 

We don't need to save the world, it's been fine for, oh, a few billion years, and it will be fine for a few billion more. 

 

We need to save ~ourselves~. Look at obesity, cancer, chronic diseases, etc. Mental illness is an unprecedented epidemic throughout all countries in the world.

 

The Science is clear. We're living longer, but we're not living ~healthier~... So, what's up with that? Not saving the world, but saving ourselves is the key.

It isn't the "right wing" that needs to stop having a fit. As for common sense, it dictates fossil fuels until the science allows something different. All we can do right now, and common sense does not dictate this, is attempt to subsidize inefficient solutions to make ourselves feel better about the use of the efficient solutions.

 

The power that runs the grids we use has to be consistent. As use rises, more generation comes on line and as use falls off, generation goes off line. We do not have an easy means of saving or storing power. Every wind generation farm has a bunch of diesel engines backing every windmill. It is not common sense to craft a false reality to cover the one we do not wish to see. The reality is that gas and oil are one of the few types of concentrated, controlled, consistent and stored forms of energy we have. If other solutions met that criteria we could use them but they don't and thus we can't.

 

Also the science isn't so clear. Often it has an agenda reflects human fallibility and lobbying efforts. As an example a growing group of dietitians are declaring many of our cancer and anti-inflammatory issues are related to heavy use of grains. The government recommends huge quantities of these grains. The more they've recommended, the higher our level of obesity has grown. They recommend them because they have the misguided notion that eating fat makes you fat when it is clear fat storage is related to carb intake and insulin response. If you ever meet a diabetic, they spend their days managing and counting their carbs.

 

The point is that once government becomes involved, it is no longer science, it is dogma. As another example look at the history of BMI. It is in no form or fashion scientific. It is the most ridiculous attempt at measuring an attribute I can think of and yet the government gives it credibility. Common sense cannot become so common and solutions cannot be found when dogma is to never be questioned.


Edited by trumptman - 5/30/12 at 8:23am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #103 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW, let's tackle these things one at a time.  Your understanding of CO2 lag is an intentional distortion perpetuated by deniers.  I don't believe you have all the facts, so I expect when you are presented with them, you will drop the C02 lag from your repertoire of arguments against AGCG.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

 

 

 

Please stop repeating your misunderstanding of CO2 lag from now on.

 

BR, I am aware of those claims.  Please stop repeating your condescension about the issue from now on.   Mmmk?  Great.  Now, here's the problem.  Things like these are not proven facts: 

 

 

  • The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic.
  • This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans.
  • This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.  The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.
  • The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.

 

These are suppositions.  These are postulations.  These are conclusions...not established fact.  Secondly, what do you notice is missing from the above?   Yes, I think you might...it's called...human activity!  That means that all of warming that took place then (which was far more significant than what we see today) happened before the first combustion engine rolled off the assembly line.  And given the Co2 increases we've seen over the past several hundred years, we should have experienced much greater warming than we have---if human made Co2 had an impact temperature.  Instead, what we've seen is that natural forces far outweigh our contribution. 

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #104 of 244

You just don't fucking read.  You cherry pick your understanding and stop before you reach the evidence that supports AGCG.  What's happening now cannot be explained only by those natural processes.  You claim that CO2 isn't even a greenhouse gas.  That's just ridiculous.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #105 of 244

BR: who here has claimed CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

 

CO2 is produced by just about every living thing. So, naturally, it has been deemed a "pollutant" by authoritarians as an excuse to give governments more control over...well...every living thing.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #106 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You just don't fucking read.  You cherry pick your understanding and stop before you reach the evidence that supports AGCG.  What's happening now cannot be explained only by those natural processes.  You claim that CO2 isn't even a greenhouse gas.  That's just ridiculous.  

 

 

You quoted four points from a study.  I reposted all four of them and merely stated that they were not facts...they were, in layman's terms, what certain scientists think may have happened.   

 

Your second statement about natural processes is unproven.  In fact, what do you think is happening now?  I'll tell you:  Despite much higher Co2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth is not warming by an appreciable amount, much less an abnormal amount.  And in that vein, we've already discussed the notion of scale and the complexity of calculating GAT now, much less 150 or more years ago.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

BR: who here has claimed CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

 

CO2 is produced by just about every living thing. So, naturally, it has been deemed a "pollutant" by authoritarians as an excuse to give governments more control over...well...every living thing.

 

lol.gif


Edited by SDW2001 - 6/1/12 at 5:33pm
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #107 of 244

Extreme Climate Change: Global Warming Does Not Cause Severe Weather - Confirmed By All Peer Reviewed Empirical Research

 

 

 

Quote:

Climate doomsday scientists and chicken-little pundits claim AGW is causing more frequent severe weather events – empirical research though can’t establish any link between extreme climate change, severe weather trends & global warming

(image source)

Democrat dick_durbin_extreme climate change global warming severe weather clownRead here. Let’s be honest about this – our nation is led by many pathetically stupid people (hmmm…pathological liars?) who consistently choose to utter clown-like statements.  Despite the preponderance of empirical research, these chicken-little clowns continue to claim that human CO2 emissions and “global warming” have caused an increase in severe weather incidents.

Fortunately, for the world, peer reviewed research based on empirical evidence (not computer simulations) establishes that an increased frequency of severe weather incidents is not the result of AGW but of colder climatic conditions. Here are seven (7) EU studies confirming that:

 

1. An Alps study "refutes the notion that anthropogenic warming is causing an increase of climate extremes and making weather more variable and extreme… Not only did the author find no change in variability, but he also detected a ”centennial oscillating structure”."

2. A Mediterranean coastal study…” In addition,...make a point of noting that "the apparent increase in intense storms around 250 years ago lasts to about AD 1900," whereupon "intense meteorological activity seems to return to a quiescent interval after (i.e. during the 20th century AD)." And they add that, "interestingly, the two periods of most frequent superstorm strikes in the Aigues-Mortes Gulf (AD 455 and 1700-1900) coincide with two of the coldest periods in Europe during the late Holocene…”

3. A study for the Aquitaine region…”…finding that dune formation was generally most common during cooler climatic intervals. In the most recent of these cold periods, the authors note there is voluminous historical evidence of many severe North Atlantic wind storms in which the southward spread of sea ice and polar water during that time likely created "an increased thermal gradient between 50°N and 65°N which intensified storm activity in the North Atlantic… Hence, the long view of history suggests that the global warming of the past century or so has actually led to an overall decrease in North Atlantic storminess.”

4. A study from the “from two cores of the Pierre Blanche lagoon just south of Montpellier, France found evidence in the form of "washover events" that allowed them "to identify the strongest storms in the Mediterranean area" over the past four centuries… Such a decline in the occurrence of "superstorms" in the Mediterranean area -- if not their total disappearance -- is a significant observation running counter to the climate-alarmist claim that global warming both intensifies storms and brings more of them.”

5. A study from Northwestern France “linked high-resolution sediment and rock properties of materials found in cores collected from the Seine estuary in northwest France to climatic conditions of the past few thousand years… they report on "four prominent centennial-scale periods of stronger storminess, occurring with a pacing of ~1500 years," which they say are "likely to be related to the last four [of] Bond's Holocene cold events," the most recent of which was the Little Ice Age…”

6. A study from the macrotidal Bay of Vilaine…” while observing that "this shift most probably documents the transition from the MWP to the Little Ice Age," which led to the "increased storminess both in the marine and continental ecosystems… concluded their study by stating that "the preservation of medieval estuarine flood deposits implies that sediment reworking by marine dynamics was considerably reduced between 880 and 1050 AD," implying that during that considerably warmer period than most (if not all) of what followed it, "climatic conditions were probably mild enough to prevent coastal erosion in northwestern France."

7. A study from France’s Atlantic coast…”analyzed tide-gauge, wind and atmospheric pressure data over the period 1951-… This work indicated that the number of atmospheric depressions (storms) and strong surge winds for this region, in the words of the author, "are becoming less frequent" and that "ongoing trends of climate variability show a decrease in the frequency and hence the gravity of coastal flooding" over the period of study.”

Conclusions: Extreme climate change – global warming during late 20th century has not led to an increase of severe weather per the multitude of recent empirical research studies (not computer simulations). Climate doomsday scientists and chicken-little politicians, primarily anti-science Democrat left-liberals-progressives, continue to mislead and frighten the public with fearmongering tactics about global warming and CO2 regardless of the empirical evidence. Instead, if the recent slight global cooling trend continues one could expect more stormy weather.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #108 of 244

That doesn't help with the marketing effort. Better double down.

post #109 of 244

It won't matter 25 years from now anyway because in the next 10 years oil, gas and coal will all not only peak but also start to be eclipsed by the global demand for energy.

 

In 2030 we'll laugh at the climate change debate because there won't be much fossil fuels left anyway compared to energy demands.

 

Even in 2020 there will be very few countries that own most of the world's energy wealth.

 

The storm is coming. But it's not because of global warming. Something else. The end of cheap energy.

post #110 of 244
Thread Starter 

Oh, look:  Greenland's glaciers melted faster in the 1930s than they are melting today.  

 

 

From the article:  

 

 

 

Quote:

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

It now appears that the glaciers were retreating even faster eighty years ago: but nobody worried about it, and the ice subsequently came back again. Box theorises that this is likely to be because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans, especially by burning coal and fuel oils. This is known to have a cooling effect.

 

(emphasis added)

 

 

 

Quote:
Other scientists have said recently that late-20th-century temperature rises in the Arctic may result largely from clean-air legislation intended to deal with acid rain:

 

 

Quote:
Still other scientists, differing with Prof Box, offer another picture altogether of Arctic temperatures, in which there were peaks both in the 1930s and 1950s and cooling until the 1990s: and in which the warming trend which resulted in the melting seen by Rasmussen's expedition actually started as early as 1840, before the industrial revolution and human-driven carbon emission had even got rolling. In that scenario, variations in the Sun seem to have much more weight than is generally accepted by today's climatologists.

 

 

Hmm, so let's see.  Burning fossil fuels is "known" to have a cooling effect.  Many scientists also claim that sun has a much greater impact on climate than the mythical "consensus" scientists do.  And temperature rises in the 20th century "may" have to do with...wait for it..clean air legislation.  

 

Yup...cased closed, BR and company.  Except it's not the case for global warming...it's the case against it.  The Earth is not warming appreciably and certainly not warming abnormally, if at all.  And there is still little to no evidence that burning fossil fuels actually causes global warming.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #111 of 244
Thread Starter 
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #112 of 244

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #113 of 244

The author of that article's main logical fallacy is:

 

 

Quote:
 

composition/division

You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.

Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.

Example: Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was made of atoms and therefore invisible too. Unfortunately, despite his thinky skills, he lost the game of hide and go seek.

 

Ice shelves?  Ice shelf.  One ice shelf.  You also ignore the difference between land ice and sea ice.  Here is an article that describes how antarctic land ice is measured.  Citations are included.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-2-How-do-we-measure-Antarctic-ice-changes.html

 

 

 

Quote:

Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?

Posted on 15 July 2010 by robert way

Guest post by Robert Way

This post summarizes the three key methods through which ice sheet losses are measured using satellite data. Although there are indeed some on site measurement techniques which are used by glaciologists, it has become the norm to use satellites for large scale measurements because of their cost-efficiency and coverage compared to on the ground measurement techniques. With regards to understanding Antarctic ice changes, these techniques are all the more important because of the continent’s size, climate, and isolation. Of all the different methods out there, it has become clear that there are three predominant techniques for accurate measurement of ice sheet changes. These consist of measuring elevation change, mass change and flux components.

i) Elevation change

Changes in the elevation of ice across the Antarctic ice sheet is measured using both laser and radar altimetry. Sensors such as these measure the distance from the satellite to the ice surface over time. Radar altimeter signals provide very good coverage for ice sheets but older versions of these satellites had issues with too low a resolution (2-5 km) leading to difficulties in measuring sloped/rough terrain. This low resolution also makes it difficult to measure small outlet glaciers where most mass wastage (ice loss) in Antarctica occurs.

Radar altimeter signals also penetrate the near-surface snow and ice layer introducing a potential bias to the data processing (Allison et al. 2009). A new radar satellite "Cryosat-2" has recently been placed into orbit equipped with a much higher resolution radar altimeter that uses complicated radar combination techniques (radar interferometry) to enhance the radar's horizontal resolution to 250 m while allowing for precise measurements of changes as small as a few centimeters. A further benefit of this satellite is that it will allow for the highest coverage available for an altimeter with measurements capable of being taken up to 88° N/S Latitude. Measurements have already been obtained from this satellite and have stunning detail (Figure 1).

mass_change1.jpg
Figure 1: New data from the recently launched Cryosat-2 over the Ross Sea

The second method of measuring elevation change is through using laser altimetry which is essentially a laser beam that measures the height from the satellite to ice surface. This measurement technique is extremely accurate and has a higher resolution than even the new radar altimeters but also has a small footprint (10s of meters) and can be affected by cloud cover (Allison et al. 2009). The most commonly used laser altimeter equipped satellite “Icesat” has no longer any working lasers thereby making satellite borne laser altimetry for ice sheets currently unfeasible but still applicable for aerial surveys or when icesat-2 is launched in 2015.

ii) Mass Changes

Gravimetry directly measures the change in regional gravitational fields through accurate measurements of the amount of effect that gravity has on satellites as they cross these regions. As mass is gained or lost it by the ice sheets, regional gravitational forces are affected, thereby making it possible for mass change estimates to be deduced. Ice sheet mass change has been detected using satellites to measure gravitational field changes through precise monitoring of the separation between a pair of satellites in identical orbits (GRACE Mission) (Allison et al. 2009). Although this method can be significantly affected by things such as crustal uplift and Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA, crustal uplift after the depressing weight of an ice sheet/ice mass is removed), it is important to note that accelerations in mass loss can be detected very effectively and cannot be directly caused by GIA (Velicogna, 2009).

iii) Flux Component Method

The flux component method refers to the estimation of the total mass inputs and mass outputs for each individual drainage basin and ultimately the ice sheet as a whole. Estimating the mass inputs requires knowledge of spatial and temporal patterns of snow accumulation in regions that are oftentimes unsurveyed. In order to make an ice sheet wide snow accumulation map, on site observations of mass through meteorological records, snow pits, ice cores and marker poles are used to ground truth regional accumulation models. These models have been shown to have good agreement with measurements in interpolated regions (Allison et al. 2009). The loss by outflow is usually estimated as the ice discharge across the grounding line of the ice sheet, as this is where ice begins to float and hence contribute to sea level rise. Estimates such as these require observations of the speed of ice flow and the thickness of the column ice. Radar Interferometry has allowed for direct all-weather measurements of surface velocities to be conducted through both a differential method and a speckle tracking method (Figure 2). Depth of ice streams has been estimated using varying means from bedrock topography models to ground penetrating radar surveys. 

mass_change2.jpg
Figure 2: Example of Radar Interferometry Velocity Measurements. Presentation by Eric Rignot at the Alos Palsar Symposium.

Satellite observations have been used to provide wide coverage of ice surface velocities but because the velocity of an ice sheet varies with depth a further level of uncertainty is added to the discharge estimates. For glaciers which move using mostly basal sliding such as outlet glaciers and ice streams with high velocities, this uncertainty is minimized because there is less variation in velocity with depth.

Conclusion
Overall when considering the different measurement techniques, it is important to note that although each individual technique has its own uncertainties, they each can and do effectively measure ice losses in Antarctica. It is also important to note that with time, each technique has become more and more accurate, and that new satellite missions such as Cryosat-2 and Icesat-2 will continue to increase the accuracy of ice loss measurements.

Part three will consist of a detailed rebuttal of several of Goddard’s recent pieces. This section will use much of the information from Parts One and Two in order to formulate this rebuttal. 

I would like to thank Professor Jon Ove Hagen (University of Oslo) for helping to proofread and discuss these postings.  

 

References

Allison, I., Alley, R., Fricker, H., Thomas, R., Warner, R. (2009). Ice sheet mass balance and sea level. Antarctic Science. 21(5), 413-426. doi:10.1017/S0954102009990137

Velicogna, I. 2009. Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE. Geophysical Research Letters. 36, L19503, doi:10.1029/2009GL040222.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #114 of 244

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #115 of 244

No matter how you slice it things are changing.

 

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/09/climate-report-links-2011-extreme-weather-events-to-global-warming/1

 

 

 

Quote:
Climate report links extreme weather events to global warming : 

The facts of the matter are this: the planet's climate has changed over the last 30 years, chiefly because of human activities. This will impact the weather - in the trivial sense that the specific weather we are having is not the same as the weather that we would have had without human actions, but also in the non-trivial sense that probabilities of various outcomes will shift - sometimes towards more extremes and sometimes towards less. We have a great deal of difficulty characterizing these changes because of insufficient observations (not enough 100 year periods to properly estimate 100 year events), insufficient attention to extremes in modeling and theory, inaccessibility of model results for extremes, and the basic statistical difficulty in attributing infrequent occurrences.

Nonetheless, the data are good enough to say some things about certain kinds of extremes (heat waves, rainfall intensity (both going up), cold snaps (going down) etc.). In far more cases however, the studies simply have not been done, or the data are simply not good enough to say much, and pundits are tending to extrapolate. That is something most scientists are loath to do.

For researchers, he adds, tracing the role of global warming in extreme weather presents an intriguing problem. "However, the portrayal of this nuanced field in public as either proving that global warming is bad, or that scientists are alarmists, is a travesty. The impact on extremes from human emissions is one of a myriad reasons why we probably don't want to continue to mess with the planetary energy balance."

 

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #116 of 244

Except that :

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

 

A picture ( even from space ) is worth a thousand words.

 

And then of course about that report :

 

Quote:
Scientists respond to the Register on Antarctic ice shelf melt: ‘This is the equivalent of turning the statement “the cancer is not as bad as we thought” into “you don't have cancer”.’

 

Quote:

"Crafty boffins" have discovered "no ice is being lost at all" from the eastern Antarctic, the Register claimed in delighted tones on Monday.

Is it right? Not if you take a look at the research discussed by the IT blog - which has quite the penchant for publishing skeptic takes on new climate science. In fact, the research's lead author of told us it reveals a slower melt rate than previously thought for one ice shelf - the Fimbul ice shelf in Antarctica, but doesn't contradict or undermine research which shows the continent losing mass.
 

The artic ice sheets are still melting.


Edited by jimmac - 7/11/12 at 12:25pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #117 of 244

Stay on topic. The alarmists said the warming we are experiencing is "unprecedented". That has been thoroughly debunked by this and several other studies.

 

Next?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #118 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Stay on topic. The alarmists said the warming we are experiencing is "unprecedented". That has been thoroughly debunked by this and several other studies.

 

Next?

Oh please! You posted as link to an article that stated the Arctic isn't melting. I showed one that debunked that particular article. Sorry if you don't like that or want to spin it into something else.

 

Here's what you posted # 112 :

 

Having to prove everything redundantly with you guys when it should be obvious ( because you should know what you said ) is dumb.


Edited by jimmac - 7/15/12 at 4:39pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #119 of 244
Thread Starter 

He also posted a link from NASA.  I guess that doesn't count.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #120 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh please! You posted as link to an article that stated the Arctic isn't melting. I showed one that debunked that particular article. Sorry if you don't like that or want to spin it into something else.

 

Here's what you posted # 112 :

 

Having to prove everything redundantly with you guys is really when it should be obvious ( because you should know what you said ) is dumb.

 

You've proven that you can find links to content that is older than the piece I linked to and completely ignore what it is saying. That's about it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another Nail in the AGW Coffin