|
|
Post by bulldognuts on Oct 14, 2012 20:00:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Oct 14, 2012 21:10:45 GMT -5
nobody really believes that crap. its just a political tool for some.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 16, 2012 7:32:31 GMT -5
That article uses cherry picked information to make a claim that is misleading. This is the cooling effects since 1973 as represented by Rose (the author) and other cherry pickers.  and the reality of global temperatures.  Here is an animation of the graphs. The met office posted their responses of the interview showing that the author misrepresented the information he had been given. The daily mail is little more than a tabloid. Please compare this rebuttal with that article to see which has more credibility. This rebuttal is supported by peer review. This is the beginning of the article, you can find the rest here Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)Posted on 17 October 2012 by dana1981 The British newspaper/tabloid The Dail Mail and its writer David Rose are notorious for publishing misleading (at best) climate-related articles, as we have discussed previously here , for example. They have recently struck again, claiming that according to a "quietly released" Met Office report, global warming stopped 16 years ago (a myth which Skeptical Science debunks here and here). This assertion is entirely fabricated, as the Met Office explained by publishing David Rose's inquiry and the Met Office's responses."Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here." Rose's factually challenged article was predictably reproduced uncritically by the usual climate denial blogs and referenced by Fox News , perhaps in an attempt to distract from this year's record-breaking Arctic sea ice minimum . However, virtually every point made in the article was factually incorrect, as Rose would have known if he were a Skeptical Science reader, because we recently pre-bunked his piece. Emphasis mine. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 18, 2012 4:54:05 GMT -5
How long have we keep records of climate change?Maybe 100 at the most.
Any idea what the temp was in say japan on july 5 1382 or in canada the same say.Anyone anyone
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 18, 2012 4:54:33 GMT -5
How long have we keep records of climate change?Maybe 100 at the most.
Any idea what the temp was in say japan on july 5 1382 or in canada the same say.Anyone anyone
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 18, 2012 6:54:14 GMT -5
It is possible to get a better understanding of what climate looked like further in the past through other methods than just mercury recordings. The National Research Council was directed to put together a report of the "data and methods that have been used in constructing records of Earth’s surface temperatures from times when there were no scientific instruments." "Because widespread, reliable instrumental records are available only for the last 150 years or so, scientists estimate climatic conditions in the more distant past by analyzing proxy evidence from sources such as tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, boreholes, glaciers, and documentary evidence." There are more ways to determine past climate than direct measurement. This report is free and is called Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2000 years. Before you discount this information out of hand consider the info they provide and see how these match to recorded temperatures (just a graph). The report is thorough and should answer most of your questions about scientists understandig of past climate. Climate does NOT and has never tried to predict the temperature in Billy Joe Bobs' backyard on any continent in any time period. They DO use readings spread across the globe from the poles to the equator in order to get an average temperature for the planet to watch if climate is changing or not. The temperature of any given spot on a certain day is irrelevant to climate unless it is has the rest of the globes temperatures (for the same time period) to determine a global average. You are treating climate and weather as the same. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 18, 2012 8:39:43 GMT -5
Temp has gone up and down for millions of tears.Fast and sometimes slow its not because of us
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 18, 2012 16:57:32 GMT -5
There was an ice age once......much warmer now.
Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 18, 2012 18:31:55 GMT -5
That was years not tears haha
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldognuts on Oct 18, 2012 19:28:34 GMT -5
I just thought this was a interesting article.I also thought that it was interesting that our GREAT LEADER has not said one word about the coming disaster of global warming during the debates.But he did claim that he is pushing hard for developing gas ,oil, and coal resources.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 18, 2012 20:17:38 GMT -5
Temp has gone up and down for millions of tears.Fast and sometimes slow its not because of us The first point shows that the climate is sensitive. In other words, it changes based on whatever is the strongest force at the time; whether it is from a change in the sun, volcanoes, clouds or CO2, but something must change it. Past changes are obviously not caused by us. No other natural effect is causing the current increase in temperatures (the sun, for example, has been on a downward trend for decades). Your point is evidence that the climate is not impervious to change, and currently co2 is the strongest forcing. You have repeated your last point before that it is not us, but never shown evidence of which natural cause is responsible for the current warming - climate does not magically change, something must force it. What is it? Scientists have ruled out the sun, milankovitch cycles and all other known natural forcings except CO2. They have also found the type of co2 that is increasing, in proportion to the other two types of carbon found in the air, and is the same type released from burning fossil fuels. That is strong evidence that the energy imbalance is related to us. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 18, 2012 20:24:16 GMT -5
Here is a short article that explains it better. "Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2." You can read the rest of it here What does past climate change tell us about global warming? |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 19, 2012 4:41:06 GMT -5
Strong evidence means they kinda guess and fill in the blanks.There is so much we don't know we are just coming out of an ice age that even covered ky.What made the ice age go away pole shifts or cow farts or suvs.The earth is always changing.Earth wobbles on its axis and that even effects us.
Subs
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 20, 2012 0:41:33 GMT -5
"Strong evidence means they kinda guess and fill in the blanks." marcus
They make an educated guess at what to research. But, through researching the different possibilities they develop a better understanding of the overall picture. They use this information to fill in the blanks, not guesswork. This is the method we have used, since Lincoln, to advise the government on scientific matters, and has seemed to work pretty well. But for some reason this process is not accepted for climate.
"There is so much we don't know" marcus
I have to assume by "we" you mean the overall human understanding of climate. Many different scientific fields contribute to the understanding of the climate, and so far, there are over 6,000 peer reviewed articles that contribute to understanding some aspect of the climate. Climate is a well studied and understood field. "We" as factory workers may not understand it well, or be aware of the level of academic understanding, but the peer reviewed material puts the level of confidence from scientists at 95% that it is warming and that it is caused by burning fossil fuels. The material is there if you want to look for it. If you don't, please at least stop listening to the fossil fuel industry propaganda on the issue since their arguments are based on retaining a level of profit.
|
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Oct 20, 2012 0:57:11 GMT -5
Lol. No profits or political gains from the liberals on the issue...huh?
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 20, 2012 2:03:34 GMT -5
Considering it is pretty much impossible to get people to startup companies if they are denied the right/ability to make a profit on it, yes some companies, including the fossil fuel industries (by converting to development and distribution of the tech) can make a profit off renewable energy. The potential is there for someone to make a profit whether they are a liberal or a conservative. So no, the profits are not a liberal only gain. Can we get a "hell yea" for capitalism?
As for political gains, this issue is the same to democrats as abortion is to republicans. If their issue is fixed to the satisfaction of their supporters, then those who support the party primarily for that reason will be able to pick a new party based on which one supports their second most important issue. A percentage of those people will likely choose another party causing a loss of voters. So yes it does give them some short term voters, but will cost them in the long run if anything effective is accomplished.
Anything to contribute on the science? Or, are you going to stick with the hoax/conspiracy theory because evidence refuting the scientific literature appears to be missing?
|
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Oct 20, 2012 4:03:33 GMT -5
Anything to contribute on the science? Or, are you going to stick with the hoax/conspiracy theory because evidence refuting the scientific literature appears to be missing? not a hoax or conspiracy theory, just gonna rely on common sense. there may be a million things on this planet for us to worry about......this crap is way at the bottom for most of us. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 30, 2012 8:10:33 GMT -5
We used to be at the center of the galaxy and the world was flat.Most
at the time agreed with this.Speed of sound will never be achieved and on and on.The greatest minds agreed on these things
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 30, 2012 8:16:20 GMT -5
Was global cooling then warming now its climate change.MOST of them just want to keep money coming in
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 30, 2012 18:43:02 GMT -5
We used to be at the center of the galaxy and the world was flat. These were the common sense beliefs that were accepted by the masses a long time ago. The trick is, this was simply ignorance because they did not have the information to know the difference. Today the common sense argument is used even though a massive amount of information is available making it willful ignorance for those who choose to ignore it. The greatest minds agreed on these things Simply because, centuries ago, they did not have the necessary tools or information to understand them at that time; now we do not have the same excuse. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 30, 2012 18:45:49 GMT -5
Was global cooling then warming now its climate change. This is a myth. You can look at research papers from the 60's that shows there were two lines of thought around this time period. One believed the aerosols from burning coal would cause global cooling. The other theory was that Co2, in the long term, would cause warming. With over 40 years of research the cooling theory has been proven to be wrong. The amount of evidence pointing to co2 contributions to warming is overwhelming. This is part of the scientific process. MOST of them just want to keep money coming in If the best these educated people can come with is to spend 6-8 years in education and then try to beat a system that is open to peer review just to commit fraud is really a stretch. With their educations they would be able to find other areas of work without risking jail time over fraudulent claims. This is an absurd argument. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 1, 2012 3:32:03 GMT -5
I could post links all day long on how they say we have been cooing but it wont change your mind.Ill let you look up global cooling yourself.Even the suns output changes up and down.
You've been lied to for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Nov 3, 2012 23:24:26 GMT -5
I could post links all day long on how they say we have been cooing but it wont change your mind. Correct. You can find a web page that supports almost any thought. The problem is finding the ones that are credible. Those making a simple claim of global cooling despite decade after decade of record setting global temperatures do not have any. Check your sources instead of accepting every argument from someone that agrees with your philosophy. Just because you have the same view does not mean their argument is reasonable. If you want to change my mind you will have to start with credible arguments. Ill let you look up global cooling yourself. Done. I could not find any in the google list of about 26,100,000 to have any credibility. Even the suns output changes up and down. Correct. Scientists have been watching sunspots and recording their findings far longer than they have been keeping temperature records. Solar output is a fairly well understood area. You've been lied to for years. And you live in a bubble to be protected from lies? The key is to check your sources to verify if they have any evidence to back their claim up or not. I have done my homework on this subject; please do some yourself to show the credibility of those whose claims you are repeating before you spread their disinformation. |
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Nov 3, 2012 23:53:50 GMT -5
I could post links all day long on how they say we have been cooing but it wont change your mind.Ill let you look up global cooling yourself.Even the suns output changes up and down. You've been lied to for years. Hey, he is slowly getting through history especially the part when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. That added to climate change also... |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Nov 4, 2012 6:35:15 GMT -5
I could post links all day long on how they say we have been cooing but it wont change your mind.Ill let you look up global cooling yourself.Even the suns output changes up and down. You've been lied to for years. Hey, he is slowly getting through history especially the part when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. That added to climate change also... Let me guess, you got that from the same source as marcus. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 5, 2012 5:29:00 GMT -5
So your source is right ours are wrong.I've found credible sources and not just google or the internet
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Nov 5, 2012 9:32:51 GMT -5
So your source is right ours are wrong.I've found credible sources and not just google or the internet My sources are either peer reviewed scientific papers or simple explanations of what the science says - with links to the actual paper. In my view, that is a superior source than just a blog. Especially when that blog does not provide some type of scientific research to support their claim, and comes from a think tank/institute that has an agenda (they all do - which means their goal is to influence legislation and public opinion). If you have credible sources, give us the citation. I will be more than happy to look at it and consider serious information that refutes the scientific claim that global warming is happening and that we are contributing to it. Just raising doubts about the issue then not providing some type of data or research is not sufficient. Just fyi, the most profitable industry on the planet has been unable to find any research to refute scientists claims. If you have found it, then great we can stop talking about climate and you can make your millions by selling your info to the fossil fuel industry. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Nov 5, 2012 14:53:42 GMT -5
So your source is right ours are wrong.I've found credible sources and not just google or the internet My sources are either peer reviewed scientific papers or simple explanations of what the science says - with links to the actual paper. In my view, that is a superior source than just a blog. Especially when that blog does not provide some type of scientific research to support their claim, and comes from a think tank/institute that has an agenda (they all do - which means their goal is to influence legislation and public opinion). If you have credible sources, give us the citation. I will be more than happy to look at it and consider serious information that refutes the scientific claim that global warming is happening and that we are contributing to it. Just raising doubts about the issue then not providing some type of data or research is not sufficient. Just fyi, the most profitable industry on the planet has been unable to find any research to refute scientists claims. If you have found it, then great we can stop talking about climate and you can make your millions by selling your info to the fossil fuel industry. Good luck. FWIW, why would the oil industry be interested in swatting away the crazies?? when the leftists get their way, they drill for less oil. but demand doesn't change, so the price skyrockets. when the treehuggers win, the only losers are you and I....the consumer. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Nov 5, 2012 16:54:49 GMT -5
FWIW, why would the oil industry be interested in swatting away the crazies?? I assume the "crazies" are the scientists. Simple, it would be more cost effective. Grants to universities are probably in the 100's of thousands that research climate. Exxon alone gives millions each year to think tanks/institutes that attempts to persuade the public or policy makers. If they were to pay for research that uses the scientific process to disprove the various arguments the issue would go away, (assuming the results supports their argument) because it would no longer be supported by any type of evidence. The cost to disprove the science would be a onetime payment, and they could then stop funding these organizations and keep that money. when the leftists get their way, they drill for less oil. but demand doesn't change, so the price skyrockets. Right, instead of just letting the cost rise though, we are looking into alternative sources of energy to provide a long-term answer to fossil fuel. when the treehuggers win, the only losers are you and I....the consumer. When the fossil fuel industry wins, the losers are those caught in the ever increasing strange weather/storm patterns causing deaths, increased food scarcity, pollution in the air and water, and loss of property which is paid by consumers (higher insurance premiums and food costs) and tax payers (to pay for storm damage and infrastructure upgrades). With climate, in the long term, the cost to prevent/reduce damages is far less than paying for the damages afterward. EDIT: the edit is in italics |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 12, 2012 5:50:03 GMT -5
Fosil fuels win we have strange weather lol what a joke
|
|
