Believe what you want, but our last Winters have been pretty fuken cold, with much snow, don't you think ??
Top scientist resigns admitting gobal warming is a big scam!
- Thread starter PornAddict
- Start date
I have to the extent that one or two looney scientists who are either incompetent or have sold their degrees to the devil do not maker a dent against the overwhelming worldwide consensus of independent research of accredited scientists and organizations.Your post here is point-less why do you not educate yourself on the matter of global warming.
My video to you:
Last edited:
Oh! You don't think so. Try googling "air force alternative fuels"Wait a minute!
Eisenhower said beware the Military-Industrial Complex.
WTF does that have to do with GW? If anything, the MIC won't finance climate alarmists or those scientists pro-AGW.
The military needs fossil fuels too.
Our winters have been colder because of global warming.Believe what you want, but our last Winters have been pretty fuken cold, with much snow, don't you think ??
Global warming is melting glaciers in Greenland at record rates, causing fresh water to enter into the AMOC which is causing it to slow down.
The slowing down of the AMOC, or great conveyer, is cooling down the North Atlantic, giving Eastern Canada and coastal Europe colder winters.
Check out the 'cold blob' in the map in the following article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ut-the-cold-blob-in-the-north-atlantic-ocean/Everything you need to know about the surprisingly cold ‘blob’ in the North Atlantic ocean
Science is not about the truth it is about what we can prove.
There is phenomenon that science can not explain or encompass yet, no doubt the phenomenon is real and tangible but it is out of our reach for now. AGW maybe true, it maybe false, though I hope you guys will agree that regardless of how good a theory sounds, it has to pass the same rigors of science as all other theories have to do to become accepted.
If AWG was scientific it would not be called AGW, it would merely be called something like CO2 theory, that is to say that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. That is all you need, and that is a much more sharpened and on the point theory. If CO2 is the primary driver of climate, and if it can be shown that human beings produce the vast majority of CO2 (if true then this is not hard to prove at all) then AGW is an inescapable conclusion.
But AGW has none of these common sense rigours, it bypasses all scientific framework and goes directly to humans are causing climate change without any of the intermediate steps required to prove it.
AGW has no explanatory powers like regular scientific theories, it does not explain why the earth was both colder and hotter in the past and worse yet it does not even try to provide and explanation.
AGW does not involve scientific experimentation.
AGW purports that is has predictive power, now because AGW lacks explanatory power or scientific experimentation if AGW does have predictive power then it lives or dies based solely on that metric so it's predictive ability has to be earth shatteringly good for AGW to even begin to be taken seriously. The only predictive power AGW has is that the next AGW statistical model will be better than the last cluster f*ck of a AGW statistical model.
There is phenomenon that science can not explain or encompass yet, no doubt the phenomenon is real and tangible but it is out of our reach for now. AGW maybe true, it maybe false, though I hope you guys will agree that regardless of how good a theory sounds, it has to pass the same rigors of science as all other theories have to do to become accepted.
If AWG was scientific it would not be called AGW, it would merely be called something like CO2 theory, that is to say that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. That is all you need, and that is a much more sharpened and on the point theory. If CO2 is the primary driver of climate, and if it can be shown that human beings produce the vast majority of CO2 (if true then this is not hard to prove at all) then AGW is an inescapable conclusion.
But AGW has none of these common sense rigours, it bypasses all scientific framework and goes directly to humans are causing climate change without any of the intermediate steps required to prove it.
AGW has no explanatory powers like regular scientific theories, it does not explain why the earth was both colder and hotter in the past and worse yet it does not even try to provide and explanation.
AGW does not involve scientific experimentation.
AGW purports that is has predictive power, now because AGW lacks explanatory power or scientific experimentation if AGW does have predictive power then it lives or dies based solely on that metric so it's predictive ability has to be earth shatteringly good for AGW to even begin to be taken seriously. The only predictive power AGW has is that the next AGW statistical model will be better than the last cluster f*ck of a AGW statistical model.
Of course, we should include one of the funniest ones of them all -- that the Himalayan glaciers will completely disappear by 2035.Now that people have stepped forward we know:
The moon landing is a farce
The Mars landings are a farce
Evolution is a farce
9/11 -WTC were taken down by a demolition crew with the wrong address.
JFK assassination - he and Marilyn Monroe moved to Tucson were they opened a pizza parlor.
Elvis & John Lennon deaths - Elvis is still alive as is Lennon - both disguised as weather scientists studying climate change.
Size doesn't matter is also a farce.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/0...ience-panel-apologizes-for-himalay-25267.html
Oops, I forgot -- the IPCC said the 2007 AR4 report with that Himalayan glaciers prediction was "peer reviewed" by thousands of scientists, and some of you AGW alarmists still believe it. :biggrin1:
Regardless, we can't let the nutty global warming predictions go by without mentioning Dr. David Viner, of the University of East Anglia, who predicted in a 2000 interview with The Independent newspaper in the U.K. that children living in Britain today would have no idea what snow looks like:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...omments/more_of_those_predictions_to_snow_us/
That's still one of my favourites.
Well for moviefan, he claims there is no consensus and 'proves' it by posting surveys where less than 10% of scientists support his view.Informal survey: if you are a denier of human caused climate change, where are you on the subject of evolution? Do you accept the scientific consensus or is that also a conspiracy?
What you and the anti-science crowd miss is that once evidence emerged, the scientists involved realized they were out to lunch. The only scientists who claimed the benefits of smoking were the ones on the payroll of the cigarette industry. And coincidentally, the prominent scientists who deny the impact of human CO2 are on the payroll of places like the Heartland institute.Remember these???
Cigarettes are great! Doctors love them!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKLpO9qhOE
Carbon dioxide is great!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA what a beautifully made commercial from global warming deny-ers!!
:rofl:
I see too many people being dis-informed easily by "top scientists" who have a vested interest (money)!!
People need to learn more on a subject themselves and not rely on information/researches from "top scientist" who are being bought!
While I'm searching, I also found this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmGkxDh9_1Q
Fertilizer!! LOL
Yet global temperatures continue to rise. This past August was the hottest worldwide on record.Believe what you want, but our last Winters have been pretty fuken cold, with much snow, don't you think ??
LOL. Basketcase thinks 100 - 66 = "less than 10."Well for moviefan, he claims there is no consensus and 'proves' it by posting surveys where less than 10% of scientists support his view.
I'll bet a lot of you thought 34 is a number that is bigger than 10. Now, you know better. :thumb:
This is the imprecision and lazy wording that is used to bamboozle people into believing AGW.Yet global temperatures continue to rise. This past August was the hottest worldwide on record.
What do you mean by "on record"?
Do you mean in all of earth history, of course not.
Do you mean, since human beings have been around, of course not.
Do you mean since recorded human history, of course not.
DO mean since when humans had a proper term or description of temperature, of course not.
What you do mean is that since we started to keep regular temperature records, I am guessing since the mid 60s when satellites were first launched.
An honest statement would be, "August has been the hottest month since the 1960s" if indeed August was incredibly hot. Now you can stretch it and say,
"August has been the hottest month since at least the 1960s", this is the maximum you can say while still being truthful.
And now flat out lies. That survey showed 10% agreed with you that anthropomorphic CO2 was not contributing to GW. The rest just disagreed as to how much impact.LOL. Basketcase thinks 100 - 66 = "less than 10."
I'll bet a lot of you thought 34 is a number that is bigger than 10. Now, you know better. :thumb:
You also claimed that there was no warming this century and 'proved' it with a survey where only another minuscule amount agreed with you.
Nice try.And now flat out lies. That survey showed 10% agreed with you that anthropomorphic CO2 was not contributing to GW.
The AGW hypothesis is that man-made greenhouse gases have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950. In the Netherlands survey, 66% of respondents voted in favour of options supporting that hypothesis, and the remainder didn't support the hypothesis.
Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
Unless you're now telling us that climate researchers who believe it isn't possible to determine whether man-made emissions are the dominant factor are part of your "consensus."
Be careful, Basketcase. Your buddy Frankfooter dug himself into a hole he could never escape by getting into this exact same argument.
Even that would be a stretch.An honest statement would be, "August has been the hottest month since the 1960s" if indeed August was incredibly hot. Now you can stretch it and say,
"August has been the hottest month since at least the 1960s", this is the maximum you can say while still being truthful.
NASA, for example, shows August 2014 being a tiny bit warmer than August 2015: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
My post is just about general statements about temperature whenever "on record" or similar is added to give the statement much more apparent gravitas than it actually has in order pluck heart strings or terrorize the layman.Even that would be a stretch.
NASA, for example, shows August 2014 being a touch warmer than August 2015: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Yes, I understood.My post is just about general statements about temperature whenever "on record" or similar is added to give the statement much more apparent gravitas than it actually has in order pluck heart strings or terrorize the layman.
I was just pointing out that -- even on Basketcase's alarmist terms -- the statement was still debatable, depending on what source you use.
I never touch anything that resembles data when I talk about AGW, I am not the one that collects it so I ultimately know nothing about absolute temperature. My viewpoints on AGW is based solely on the scientific method and specifically how climate science does not use the scientific method while impersonating itself as an actual science.
That is your personal opinion.I never touch anything that resembles data when I talk about AGW, I am not the one that collects it so I ultimately know nothing about absolute temperature. My viewpoints on AGW is based solely on the scientific method and specifically how climate science does not use the scientific method while impersonating itself as an actual science.
You admit you know nothing about the data or the science, but still feel that you are qualified to rule that climate science isn't science.
Your opinion is worthless and its based off of your inflated opinion of your qualifications.
Why not take the word of the body that represents the largest numbers of scientists, not just climatologists.
The AAAS represents the vast majority of qualified scientists, the group most qualified to judge the work of climatologists outside of their field.
And they fully back the work of the IPCC.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
Your entirely singular and uneducated opinion is rendered entirely without merit when compared to the support of the AAAS.
You are wrong.
Or you could take NOAA's findings.Even that would be a stretch.
NASA, for example, shows August 2014 being a tiny bit warmer than August 2015: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201508The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.This value surpassed the previous record set in 2014 by 0.09°C (0.16°F).
Or you could even take the correct link for NASA's data, which is this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
That agrees with NOAA's findings, that Aug 2015 was much warmer the Aug 2014, they say by 0.8ºC.
As usual, moviefan is wrong.
