No, again. Not my point. My point, again, is that actual, real, verifiable scientific evidence was interpreted in a biased fashion. I don't know how to be more clear about this. Data is unbiased, but interpretations of data often are, and in the example I pointed out, blatantly so. The counter to this, would be your seemingly unflinching belief that the interpretation of the data is not at all wrong, when in fact this is a real possibility, particularly when these models have been PROVEN to be wrong by the same scientists that currently swear on their life are true.
I have no interest in being wrong or right about this; I'm pointing out inconsistencies that are blindly ignored by global warming alarmists (which again, those who insist on continually being condescending, is not scientific). If my bias is to be skeptical of these dogmatic proclamations, then your apparent bias is to blindly focus on them.
I want to reiterate, again, that these facts CANNOT BE VIEWED IN A VACUUM. Even if we accept the current findings as true, do we really think they can be extrapolated out for decades (past evidence, and common sense, says no)? Even if we accept the current findings as true, does that warrant the changes being suggested, which have very real economic impacts (particularly for developing nations)? Even if we accept the current findings as true, does that mean that focusing 90% of our environmental focus on CO2 emissions is an effective way to help the environment, when it comes at the expense of dealing with other, more immediate, and concretely addressable environmental issues (again: habitat destruction, pollution, sustainability, fishery protection, invasive species damage, species extinction.....)?
If it seems like I'm repeating myself, I am, because, as is usual, none of the issues I'm bringing up are really being addressed. What the typical response seems to be is condescension, and referencing that there is "overwhelming data" that disproves me. But again, my point isn't so much with the data (although I believe it should be open to skepticism), but on the interpretation and implications of this data.
I agree completely with your last paragraph, that what Apple is doing is great, and that the individual that made that remark to Tim was an a-hole (I'm reading between the lines on this last bit
You're doing it again. You're projecting your own biases onto those reports. I know you're trying to convince that you're not biased, but it's not working because your biases are very strong, and you just can't help but to give a dig in your posts that shows it.
I could understand if you said that most climate work was looking good, and pretty accurate, but that some of it didn't seem right. But you don't. According to you, and other deniers, pretty much ALL of the work is so flawed so as to be worthless. But you can't point to a single study by anyone who is respected in the field that proves the opposite. Not a single one. And that's because there isn't a single study that's respected, that does show that.
I have to use the word "respected" because there are a few people who have done deeply flawed work who are also denying this. But most of those who were denying this just a few years ago, and I'm talking about scientists, have now come over to agree that this is a very serious problem, and that we are causing most of it.
It should be easy to see where the deniers are coming from. The biggest backers of that are the Koch brothers. What do they do, you ask? They are the owners of tise country's, and some of the world's biggest coal mines. Coal, as you should know, is the world's dirtiest fuel, with no hope of ever being able to clean it up. So they, and other dirty energy companies back this nonsense about us not having anything to do global warming, because if they did, then what would they do? Owners of coal and oil fired energy plants also back that contention, because they don't want to spend the bucks to move to cleaner energy production. This is all pretty obvious, and looking at where the lobbying bucks are makes it pretty public as well.
But of course, you don't want to look at that! You believe the propaganda they spew out, with absolutely no scientific backing, and indeed, bucking the science we know to be true.
If you simply don't have to ability to leave your biases behind, and evaluate those reports objectively, which it seems you don't, then I'm simply not going to bother to respond to you on this anymore. There's just no point to it.
I'd argue that it's actually worse than that. The level of attempted projection is really quite staggering. It is clear that many espousing these views do not have even the faintest understanding of science or how it is conducted but, faced with almost unprecedented scientific consensus and no actual counter-evidence, they attempt to portray those who doubt their unsupported counter-assertions as obstinate, dogmatic close-minded and unreasonable - precisely the characteristics that they, themselves, are displaying. It's somehow fascinating and yet horrifying, at the same time.
Trying to pin them down, inevitably, is doomed to failure. You cite peer-reviewed studies and request equivalent material to support their view - they ignore the studies and respond with links to blogs or newspaper articles that link to blogs. Their argument almost always starts with the assertion that their viewpoint is already proven beyond doubt, but they cannot produce even counter-hypotheses, let alone anything resembling proof, and clearly completely fail to grasp that most of science does not revolve around proofs. Last resort - don't trust the scientists, because they have not always been right. Talk about an infestation of logical fallacies. Where are the logic police when you need them?
You're right. I don't know why we're even wasting our time with these people. Unfortunately the right in this country is very unscientific in their be.iefs. The Republican Party is very unscientific in their be.iefs. The problem with being a "business party" as they proclaim themselves to be is that they have to toe the ,ine of the biggest sectors. Those sectors line their election war chests, so even if they don't believe the crap, they have to mouth it.
Here's a key quote, which lends credibility to Patchy's assertions:
"“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”"
Remember, it was the scientific community that gave pregnant women Thalidomide:
"Science" has become as much of a religion as anything from the middle ages. Priests with select knowledge, only certain people allowed to interpret the data (peer reviews), condescension and ostracism for anyone who doesn't accept the "consensus" interpretations as gospel.
In 2007 I was a radio DJ during the Earth Day stuff that was going on. Later I learned that Al Gore and David Suzuki have large investments in companies that benefit from the global warming scare, and they own large mansions and fly in private jets. No bias here, right?!
Did you even read the text in that link, or just the headline? Or are you simply obliging us by demonstrating exactly the attitude that he was complaining about?
Did you even read the text in that link, or just the headline? Or are you simply obliging us by demonstrating exactly the attitude that he was complaining about?
Laughably, you failed to read the rest of the article, which supports Climate Change.
Hint: Global, not local.
Right, sorry, I forgot, now it's called CLIMATE CHANGE, not GLOBAL WARMING, because... scientific opinions and interpretation of data NEVER change. LOL
You're doing it again. You're projecting your own biases onto those reports. I know you're trying to convince that you're not biased, but it's not working because your biases are very strong, and you just can't help but to give a dig in your posts that shows it.
I could understand if you said that most climate work was looking good, and pretty accurate, but that some of it didn't seem right. But you don't. According to you, and other deniers, pretty much ALL of the work is so flawed so as to be worthless. But you can't point to a single study by anyone who is respected in the field that proves the opposite. Not a single one. And that's because there isn't a single study that's respected, that does show that.
I have to use the word "respected" because there are a few people who have done deeply flawed work who are also denying this. But most of those who were denying this just a few years ago, and I'm talking about scientists, have now come over to agree that this is a very serious problem, and that we are causing most of it.
It should be easy to see where the deniers are coming from. The biggest backers of that are the Koch brothers. What do they do, you ask? They are the owners of tise country's, and some of the world's biggest coal mines. Coal, as you should know, is the world's dirtiest fuel, with no hope of ever being able to clean it up. So they, and other dirty energy companies back this nonsense about us not having anything to do global warming, because if they did, then what would they do? Owners of coal and oil fired energy plants also back that contention, because they don't want to spend the bucks to move to cleaner energy production. This is all pretty obvious, and looking at where the lobbying bucks are makes it pretty public as well.
But of course, you don't want to look at that! You believe the propaganda they spew out, with absolutely no scientific backing, and indeed, bucking the science we know to be true.
If you simply don't have to ability to leave your biases behind, and evaluate those reports objectively, which it seems you don't, then I'm simply not going to bother to respond to you on this anymore. There's just no point to it.
Of course I respect your opinions as a long time poster here Mel, however it should be noted that your own views on so-called "climate change" are likewise informed by partisan sources. Attacking the poster for their views and unfairly labeling them as a "denier" confused by Koch Industries 'propaganda' seems to me un-moderator-like. I'm cool with presenting an opposing view supported by facts or opinion, but unless people are slamming the forums with spam ads or inflammatory speech, shouldn't this guy get an equal chance to participate in the discussion? Just my nickel's worth.
Right, sorry, I forgot, now it's called CLIMATE CHANGE, not GLOBAL WARMING, because... scientific opinions and interpretation of data NEVER change. LOL
"The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."
"The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."
Oh, dear.
And,
"“Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,” Parkinson said. “The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”
For sure it's the Koch brothers and their coal production that's causing this, right?
Laughably, you failed to read the rest of the article, which supports Climate Change.
Hint: Global, not local.
Right, sorry, I forgot, now it's called CLIMATE CHANGE, not GLOBAL WARMING, because... scientific opinions and interpretation of data NEVER change. LOL
Please - keep going - you are making our point perfectly. If your argument amounts to the observations (1) that the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are both being used (even though the climate change referred to is a warming trend) and (2) that scientific opinions sometimes change (even though they haven't in this case), then you are an excellent example of the irrational and unscientific mindset that @melgross and I were discussing.
Please - keep going - you are making our point perfectly. If your argument amounts to the observations (1) that the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are both being used (even though the climate change referred to is a warming trend) and (2) that scientific opinions sometimes change (even though they haven't in this case), then you are an excellent example of the irrational and unscientific mindset that @melgross and I were discussing.
Right, I'm irrational, when NCDC data shows the last decade was the coldest on record:
"They" changed the term from Global Warming to Climate Change to backwards-rationalize the statistical model, duhhh.
Follow the money... Koch brothers benefit from coal production... anyone else out there making big money on nuclear, wind turbines, solar, hydroelectric? Maybe? Or are the people making money off "green" energy not biased – is that what us "irrational deniers" are supposed to believe? My scientists are better than your scientists, so there!
You're doing it again. You're projecting your own biases onto those reports. I know you're trying to convince that you're not biased, but it's not working because your biases are very strong, and you just can't help but to give a dig in your posts that shows it.
I could understand if you said that most climate work was looking good, and pretty accurate, but that some of it didn't seem right. But you don't. According to you, and other deniers, pretty much ALL of the work is so flawed so as to be worthless. But you can't point to a single study by anyone who is respected in the field that proves the opposite. Not a single one. And that's because there isn't a single study that's respected, that does show that.
I have to use the word "respected" because there are a few people who have done deeply flawed work who are also denying this. But most of those who were denying this just a few years ago, and I'm talking about scientists, have now come over to agree that this is a very serious problem, and that we are causing most of it.
It should be easy to see where the deniers are coming from. The biggest backers of that are the Koch brothers. What do they do, you ask? They are the owners of tise country's, and some of the world's biggest coal mines. Coal, as you should know, is the world's dirtiest fuel, with no hope of ever being able to clean it up. So they, and other dirty energy companies back this nonsense about us not having anything to do global warming, because if they did, then what would they do? Owners of coal and oil fired energy plants also back that contention, because they don't want to spend the bucks to move to cleaner energy production. This is all pretty obvious, and looking at where the lobbying bucks are makes it pretty public as well.
But of course, you don't want to look at that! You believe the propaganda they spew out, with absolutely no scientific backing, and indeed, bucking the science we know to be true.
If you simply don't have to ability to leave your biases behind, and evaluate those reports objectively, which it seems you don't, then I'm simply not going to bother to respond to you on this anymore. There's just no point to it.
Of course I respect your opinions as a long time poster here Mel, however it should be noted that your own views on so-called "climate change" are likewise informed by partisan sources. Attacking the poster for their views and unfairly labeling them as a "denier" confused by Koch Industries 'propaganda' seems to me un-moderator-like. I'm cool with presenting an opposing view supported by facts or opinion, but unless people are slamming the forums with spam ads or inflammatory speech, shouldn't this guy get an equal chance to participate in the discussion? Just my nickel's worth.
To be fair - he is absolutely being allowed to participate. If his posts were being deleted that would be different. To turn it around, why should Mel not be entitled to put his own viewpoint equally robustly? And which partisan sources are you referring to here? Is that another "scientists are partisan" accusation?
Please - keep going - you are making our point perfectly. If your argument amounts to the observations (1) that the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are both being used (even though the climate change referred to is a warming trend) and (2) that scientific opinions sometimes change (even though they haven't in this case), then you are an excellent example of the irrational and unscientific mindset that @melgross and I were discussing.
Right, I'm irrational, when NCDC data shows the last decade was the coldest on record:
"They" changed the term from Global Warming to Climate Change to backwards-rationalize the statistical model, duhhh.
Follow the money... Koch brothers benefit from coal production... anyone else out there making big money on nuclear, wind turbines, solar, hydroelectric? Maybe? Or are the people making money off "green" energy not biased – is that what us "irrational deniers" are supposed to believe? My scientists are better than your scientists, so there!
Incredible. Another link to an idiot blog site as evidence. All the data indicate that globally, the past decade was the hottest, not the coldest, decade on record, and an extension of a consistent 100 year trend. Which part of "globally" are you incapable of understanding?
And you don't have any scientists supporting your view.
"“Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,” Parkinson said. “The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”
For sure it's the Koch brothers and their coal production that's causing this, right?
Increasing CO2 increases planetary temperature. Do you agree with that?
If so, why wouldn't burning coal, which releases more CO2 per BTU than even natural gas, be considered a power source that we would want to reduce, and why wouldn't I expect that the Koch Brothers would continue to buy off politicians in the quest to continue expansion of coal use for power.
As for the expansion of ice in Antarctica, that is data that will be used to modify the computer models for global warming, but it doesn't change the data that shows an increase in temperature on the planet linked to greenhouse gases, i.e., CO2.
To be fair - he is absolutely being allowed to participate. If his posts were being deleted that would be different. To turn it around, why should Mel not be entitled to put his own viewpoint equally robustly? And which partisan sources are you referring to here? Is that another "scientists are partisan" accusation?
There are a number of posters in this thread who have provided contrary evidence and links to sources that (as far as I know) don't originate from Koch Industries.
To be fair - he is absolutely being allowed to participate. If his posts were being deleted that would be different. To turn it around, why should Mel not be entitled to put his own viewpoint equally robustly? And which partisan sources are you referring to here? Is that another "scientists are partisan" accusation?
There are a number of posters in this thread who have provided contrary evidence and links to sources that (as far as I know) don't originate from Koch Industries.
I've not seen any. I've seen links to blogs and journalists who don't appear to be capable of understanding the science. If you can find even a single peer-reviewed study that supports the counter-argument then please post it. This debate is ludicrously one-sided in terms of evidence.
Increasing CO2 increases planetary temperature. Do you agree with that?
If so, why wouldn't burning coal, which releases more CO2 per BTU than even natural gas, be considered a power source that we would want to reduce, and why wouldn't I expect that the Koch Brothers would continue to buy off politicians in the quest to continue expansion of coal use for power.
As for the expansion of ice in Antarctica, that is data that will be used to modify the computer models for global warming, but it doesn't change the data that shows an increase in temperature on the planet linked to greenhouse gases, i.e., CO2.
There is no data that shows cooling.
As to your first point, who knows? Sure, let's reduce coal production, because it's filthy, regardless of global warming. But Koch brothers aren't stopping Solar City or Apple from moving large dollars into solar. Not stopping fracking in North Dakota or the oil sands in Alberta, Canada. Not stopping hydroelectric. All the wealthy and powerful have their propaganda agents; I'm not convinced Al Gore with his investments in green energy is some sort of world savior. And I also know that the earth has had long periods of warming and cooling, long before the industrial revolution, so it can't be (all) man-made.
Call me a cynic!
I just linked to data that shows global cooling. There's a very good reason why you hardly ever hear the phrase "global warming" anymore. It's CLIMATE CHANGE, get with the program :0
Comments
You're doing it again. You're projecting your own biases onto those reports. I know you're trying to convince that you're not biased, but it's not working because your biases are very strong, and you just can't help but to give a dig in your posts that shows it.
I could understand if you said that most climate work was looking good, and pretty accurate, but that some of it didn't seem right. But you don't. According to you, and other deniers, pretty much ALL of the work is so flawed so as to be worthless. But you can't point to a single study by anyone who is respected in the field that proves the opposite. Not a single one. And that's because there isn't a single study that's respected, that does show that.
I have to use the word "respected" because there are a few people who have done deeply flawed work who are also denying this. But most of those who were denying this just a few years ago, and I'm talking about scientists, have now come over to agree that this is a very serious problem, and that we are causing most of it.
It should be easy to see where the deniers are coming from. The biggest backers of that are the Koch brothers. What do they do, you ask? They are the owners of tise country's, and some of the world's biggest coal mines. Coal, as you should know, is the world's dirtiest fuel, with no hope of ever being able to clean it up. So they, and other dirty energy companies back this nonsense about us not having anything to do global warming, because if they did, then what would they do? Owners of coal and oil fired energy plants also back that contention, because they don't want to spend the bucks to move to cleaner energy production. This is all pretty obvious, and looking at where the lobbying bucks are makes it pretty public as well.
But of course, you don't want to look at that! You believe the propaganda they spew out, with absolutely no scientific backing, and indeed, bucking the science we know to be true.
If you simply don't have to ability to leave your biases behind, and evaluate those reports objectively, which it seems you don't, then I'm simply not going to bother to respond to you on this anymore. There's just no point to it.
You're right. I don't know why we're even wasting our time with these people. Unfortunately the right in this country is very unscientific in their be.iefs. The Republican Party is very unscientific in their be.iefs. The problem with being a "business party" as they proclaim themselves to be is that they have to toe the ,ine of the biggest sectors. Those sectors line their election war chests, so even if they don't believe the crap, they have to mouth it.
Mel: How do you explain this?
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/#.VN4pCkLfeud
Is NASA backed by the Koch brothers too?
Here's a key quote, which lends credibility to Patchy's assertions:
"“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”"
Remember, it was the scientific community that gave pregnant women Thalidomide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
"Science" has become as much of a religion as anything from the middle ages. Priests with select knowledge, only certain people allowed to interpret the data (peer reviews), condescension and ostracism for anyone who doesn't accept the "consensus" interpretations as gospel.
In 2007 I was a radio DJ during the Earth Day stuff that was going on. Later I learned that Al Gore and David Suzuki have large investments in companies that benefit from the global warming scare, and they own large mansions and fly in private jets. No bias here, right?!
Mel: How do you explain this?
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/#.VN4pCkLfeud
Is NASA backed by the Koch brothers too?
Did you even read the text in that link, or just the headline? Or are you simply obliging us by demonstrating exactly the attitude that he was complaining about?
Did you even read the text in that link, or just the headline? Or are you simply obliging us by demonstrating exactly the attitude that he was complaining about?
I added to the post. See above.
Mel: How do you explain this?
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/#.VN4pCkLfeud
Is NASA backed by the Koch brothers too?
Laughably, you failed to read the rest of the article, which supports Climate Change.
Hint: Global, not local.
Laughably, you failed to read the rest of the article, which supports Climate Change.
Hint: Global, not local.
Right, sorry, I forgot, now it's called CLIMATE CHANGE, not GLOBAL WARMING, because... scientific opinions and interpretation of data NEVER change. LOL
Of course I respect your opinions as a long time poster here Mel, however it should be noted that your own views on so-called "climate change" are likewise informed by partisan sources. Attacking the poster for their views and unfairly labeling them as a "denier" confused by Koch Industries 'propaganda' seems to me un-moderator-like. I'm cool with presenting an opposing view supported by facts or opinion, but unless people are slamming the forums with spam ads or inflammatory speech, shouldn't this guy get an equal chance to participate in the discussion? Just my nickel's worth.
Right, sorry, I forgot, now it's called CLIMATE CHANGE, not GLOBAL WARMING, because... scientific opinions and interpretation of data NEVER change. LOL
"The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."
Oh, dear.
"The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."
Oh, dear.
And,
"“Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,” Parkinson said. “The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”
For sure it's the Koch brothers and their coal production that's causing this, right?
Laughably, you failed to read the rest of the article, which supports Climate Change.
Hint: Global, not local.
Right, sorry, I forgot, now it's called CLIMATE CHANGE, not GLOBAL WARMING, because... scientific opinions and interpretation of data NEVER change. LOL
Please - keep going - you are making our point perfectly. If your argument amounts to the observations (1) that the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are both being used (even though the climate change referred to is a warming trend) and (2) that scientific opinions sometimes change (even though they haven't in this case), then you are an excellent example of the irrational and unscientific mindset that @melgross and I were discussing.
Please - keep going - you are making our point perfectly. If your argument amounts to the observations (1) that the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are both being used (even though the climate change referred to is a warming trend) and (2) that scientific opinions sometimes change (even though they haven't in this case), then you are an excellent example of the irrational and unscientific mindset that @melgross and I were discussing.
Right, I'm irrational, when NCDC data shows the last decade was the coldest on record:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/ncdc-data-shows-that-the-contiguous-usa-has-not-warmed-in-the-past-decade-summers-are-cooler-winters-are-getting-colder/
"They" changed the term from Global Warming to Climate Change to backwards-rationalize the statistical model, duhhh.
Follow the money... Koch brothers benefit from coal production... anyone else out there making big money on nuclear, wind turbines, solar, hydroelectric? Maybe? Or are the people making money off "green" energy not biased – is that what us "irrational deniers" are supposed to believe? My scientists are better than your scientists, so there!
You're doing it again. You're projecting your own biases onto those reports. I know you're trying to convince that you're not biased, but it's not working because your biases are very strong, and you just can't help but to give a dig in your posts that shows it.
I could understand if you said that most climate work was looking good, and pretty accurate, but that some of it didn't seem right. But you don't. According to you, and other deniers, pretty much ALL of the work is so flawed so as to be worthless. But you can't point to a single study by anyone who is respected in the field that proves the opposite. Not a single one. And that's because there isn't a single study that's respected, that does show that.
I have to use the word "respected" because there are a few people who have done deeply flawed work who are also denying this. But most of those who were denying this just a few years ago, and I'm talking about scientists, have now come over to agree that this is a very serious problem, and that we are causing most of it.
It should be easy to see where the deniers are coming from. The biggest backers of that are the Koch brothers. What do they do, you ask? They are the owners of tise country's, and some of the world's biggest coal mines. Coal, as you should know, is the world's dirtiest fuel, with no hope of ever being able to clean it up. So they, and other dirty energy companies back this nonsense about us not having anything to do global warming, because if they did, then what would they do? Owners of coal and oil fired energy plants also back that contention, because they don't want to spend the bucks to move to cleaner energy production. This is all pretty obvious, and looking at where the lobbying bucks are makes it pretty public as well.
But of course, you don't want to look at that! You believe the propaganda they spew out, with absolutely no scientific backing, and indeed, bucking the science we know to be true.
If you simply don't have to ability to leave your biases behind, and evaluate those reports objectively, which it seems you don't, then I'm simply not going to bother to respond to you on this anymore. There's just no point to it.
Of course I respect your opinions as a long time poster here Mel, however it should be noted that your own views on so-called "climate change" are likewise informed by partisan sources. Attacking the poster for their views and unfairly labeling them as a "denier" confused by Koch Industries 'propaganda' seems to me un-moderator-like. I'm cool with presenting an opposing view supported by facts or opinion, but unless people are slamming the forums with spam ads or inflammatory speech, shouldn't this guy get an equal chance to participate in the discussion? Just my nickel's worth.
To be fair - he is absolutely being allowed to participate. If his posts were being deleted that would be different. To turn it around, why should Mel not be entitled to put his own viewpoint equally robustly? And which partisan sources are you referring to here? Is that another "scientists are partisan" accusation?
Please - keep going - you are making our point perfectly. If your argument amounts to the observations (1) that the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are both being used (even though the climate change referred to is a warming trend) and (2) that scientific opinions sometimes change (even though they haven't in this case), then you are an excellent example of the irrational and unscientific mindset that @melgross and I were discussing.
Right, I'm irrational, when NCDC data shows the last decade was the coldest on record:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/ncdc-data-shows-that-the-contiguous-usa-has-not-warmed-in-the-past-decade-summers-are-cooler-winters-are-getting-colder/
"They" changed the term from Global Warming to Climate Change to backwards-rationalize the statistical model, duhhh.
Follow the money... Koch brothers benefit from coal production... anyone else out there making big money on nuclear, wind turbines, solar, hydroelectric? Maybe? Or are the people making money off "green" energy not biased – is that what us "irrational deniers" are supposed to believe? My scientists are better than your scientists, so there!
Incredible. Another link to an idiot blog site as evidence. All the data indicate that globally, the past decade was the hottest, not the coldest, decade on record, and an extension of a consistent 100 year trend. Which part of "globally" are you incapable of understanding?
And you don't have any scientists supporting your view.
And,
"“Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,” Parkinson said. “The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”
For sure it's the Koch brothers and their coal production that's causing this, right?
Increasing CO2 increases planetary temperature. Do you agree with that?
If so, why wouldn't burning coal, which releases more CO2 per BTU than even natural gas, be considered a power source that we would want to reduce, and why wouldn't I expect that the Koch Brothers would continue to buy off politicians in the quest to continue expansion of coal use for power.
As for the expansion of ice in Antarctica, that is data that will be used to modify the computer models for global warming, but it doesn't change the data that shows an increase in temperature on the planet linked to greenhouse gases, i.e., CO2.
There is no data that shows cooling.
There are a number of posters in this thread who have provided contrary evidence and links to sources that (as far as I know) don't originate from Koch Industries.
I thought that was wrong, seems I was right.
To be fair - he is absolutely being allowed to participate. If his posts were being deleted that would be different. To turn it around, why should Mel not be entitled to put his own viewpoint equally robustly? And which partisan sources are you referring to here? Is that another "scientists are partisan" accusation?
There are a number of posters in this thread who have provided contrary evidence and links to sources that (as far as I know) don't originate from Koch Industries.
I've not seen any. I've seen links to blogs and journalists who don't appear to be capable of understanding the science. If you can find even a single peer-reviewed study that supports the counter-argument then please post it. This debate is ludicrously one-sided in terms of evidence.
Increasing CO2 increases planetary temperature. Do you agree with that?
If so, why wouldn't burning coal, which releases more CO2 per BTU than even natural gas, be considered a power source that we would want to reduce, and why wouldn't I expect that the Koch Brothers would continue to buy off politicians in the quest to continue expansion of coal use for power.
As for the expansion of ice in Antarctica, that is data that will be used to modify the computer models for global warming, but it doesn't change the data that shows an increase in temperature on the planet linked to greenhouse gases, i.e., CO2.
There is no data that shows cooling.
As to your first point, who knows? Sure, let's reduce coal production, because it's filthy, regardless of global warming. But Koch brothers aren't stopping Solar City or Apple from moving large dollars into solar. Not stopping fracking in North Dakota or the oil sands in Alberta, Canada. Not stopping hydroelectric. All the wealthy and powerful have their propaganda agents; I'm not convinced Al Gore with his investments in green energy is some sort of world savior. And I also know that the earth has had long periods of warming and cooling, long before the industrial revolution, so it can't be (all) man-made.
Call me a cynic!
I just linked to data that shows global cooling. There's a very good reason why you hardly ever hear the phrase "global warming" anymore. It's CLIMATE CHANGE, get with the program :0
I thought that was wrong, seems I was right.
Just to clarify whatever you think that shows: