====
Sagebrush --
>>The earth has been cooling for over a decade now,<<
Your blind faith in ignorance is impressive. I don't see any value in preferring a lifestyle based on stupidity, but that's your decision.
=======
Sagebrush --
>>that you should want proof. Weren't you the one who said science has nothing to with proof, just yesterday<<
I want evidence.
It is not what 'I" say about proof. The possible outcomes of any hypothesis test are (1) reject and (2) fail to reject. Therefore, there is no path to a "proof." Surely, even you can figure that out.
====
Sagebrush --
>>You see I back up everything with facts. Notice I used raw data, and I stayed away from El Nino. <<
No - you used a computer model that you don't understand - to generate a graph that you don't understand - based on data that you don't understand.
=====
Sagebrush --
I never said the word "proof" did not exist - only that it does not exist in science.
The earth is not cooling and Hansen has admitted to no such lie.
"Woodfortrees" is a computer model that generates graphs - YOU did not use any data, THEY DID - data that you claim is fraudulent. They should have a disclaimer against use by scientifically illiterate amateurs.
<
I haven't in Cleveland since I was 5 years old.
No, it's a replacement for "Flower Power or the "Peace Movement" or "Save the Whale", something for precious adolescents to fret over before they grow up, get married with a mortgage, then really have to start worrying.
EDIT @ Big Syph: Your statistic of almost thirteen million scientists in the USA believing in (Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists?) means that one in twenty-three people in the USA is a scientist, you do realise that, don't you?
I have a great admiration for the educational system in the US, but refuse to believe that when I visit every twenty-third person I meet is a scientist.
Is this an example of your knowledge of basic numeration?
No wonder you are an alarmist.
Have a nice, if misguided day.
Personally I think this global warming is just a money making tax the planet has been here for millions of years and has changed many times naturally in that time and I don't believe that man can change it in a matter of a few thousand years
You don't have a clue what you're talking about--of course the Earth will survive, that's not even an issue.
And if the whole idea is to do better off financially and pay less taxes, then the smart thing is to take care of global warming before it gets out of hand. The costs of letting global warming happen are orders of magnitude higher than stopping it before it does.
You must be one of Ottawa Mike's "critical thinkers."
Do you buy into the second law of thermodynamics or the activated complex theory of chemical reactions?
I can see where your difficulties lie - they're scientific discussions as well.
If you really want to understand -- from scientists, not from media -- refer to the National Academy of Science. This is the organization of the greatest scientists in America. The very purpose of the NAS is to educate the country in areas of complex scientists.
From this page you can access the booklet or the video series. It explains what scientists know and what the evidence is.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
You do make a great point: the earth will survive. The question is what costs we want our grandchildren to pay. Do you believe in being accountable?
There is very little real doubt about the science of global warming - if you are interested in the science , the best review is the IPCC Synthesis Report , which I assume you have not read
Addressing the climate changes are a matter of determining political and economic policy - which may include taxes, regulations , increased military expenditure or doing nothing. It comes down to a cost/benefit analysis
in 1958 atmospheric CO2 was 317 ppm , NOAA just announced that it has just hit 400 ppm . if you bother to read the science , the last time CO2 went to just above 380 ppm , it took 2 million years for the earth to cool down again . 400 ppm is to much , it is the tipping point , the point of no return . the earth will go into an irreversible permanent greenhouse effect . 700 degrees F at noon . yeah , the earth will still be here , but it will be a hot barren dead rock .
at best we have a decade or two before the seas boil off into space and humanity turns to dust .
money won't help . the secret government bunkers won't help . you deniers die too .
how much does the oil and coal industries pay to be a denier on YA ?
The Earth isn't going to be destroyed by global warming. Certain species that live in certain ecological niches will find it harder to adapt and may become extinct. As the majority of human population is within areas of coastlines and flooding is expected to increase with increasing storm surges they may have to move as a result. Certain aspects related to agriculture and so on will change. Health problems may become more apparent as diseases and such are widening their distributions as their vectors travel to different locales based on their comfort zone and feed types. no one has ever said, at least no scientists, that the Earth would cease to exist if it gets too hot. And despite your claim of "It's happened before therefor there is nothing to worry about" people far more knowledgeable than you disagree. You seem like a typical right wing conspiracy theorist just as many of the other posters in here are.
Sagebrush: You don;t even understand what an El Nino is. El Nino is one half of the ENSO cycle. The time period you gave is dominated by the other half of that cycle, the La Nina, which redistributes energy away from the atmosphere actively cooling it. However this works on a biyearly cycle and that heat, which is still within the system, will show itself again.
You can't just post a graph of worldwide temperatures and stated "Well gee I stayed away from El Nino, duh". You have to actively take away the effects of the entire ENSO cycle. Also the adjustments done are due to changing positions of land based measuring devices, orbital satellite decay, and so on. If you only look at raw data you are looking at data that does not adjust for these things and will get a false reading as a result. But of course you're going to come back with a conspiracy-style reply filled with comments about nazism and so on and then continue to state that you are using 'real science' when you are doing nothing of the sort. Then you will continue your anti-environment propaganda.
No I dont buy in to it .
I think mankind's numbers are exploding and that MUST have an effect on the environment but that the Apocalyptic Doomsayers do not allow for the real process being Glacially slow , and for the history showing that changes are gradual , not dramatic .
I live just down the road from the UK's UEA which has one of the world's leading Earth Science schools , and has been at the forefront of controversies over the issue .
The city of Norwich is just to the west of a huge area of wetlands , of European importance , called the Norfolk Broads . That system is open to the sea . On one of the tidal rivers winding across it is a village called Potter Heigham , and across that river is a medieval stone bridge .
I have been going under that bridge in small boats for the last 50 years , and I'm damned if I can see the water level has risen any .
It actually SHOULD be because this side of England is tipping down and east into the North Sea by a milimetre or two each year .
Go Figure .
What I WILL say is that if we as a species keep running ever increasing numbers of internal combustion engines , then sooner or later we are going to poison the atmosphere .
The problem is one of over-population , but you try imposing birth controls - every religious person would unite to condemn you , as would the Corporate Capitalist machine , which wants constant population growth as each individual is another consumer to buy it's products and services .
This scam has been going on for more than 30 years already and the alarmists have raked in hundreds of billions in taxpayer money.
And the stunning fact is that the planet never warmed above what was well within the range of normal. It's all about money and power. The greedy con-artists behind this scam are evil, they even try to use and scare children to promote their political agenda.
I don't funny enough. The media blow it up like we (having been on earth for little over thousands of years compared to the earth age of billions years) have actually changed the earth. I'm sure the earth has gone through worse changes in the past and survived. I think it's just a way to bring about more tax, charges, levy etc lol
The Grifter is at it again, with that tired old worn out dis-proven 97%. That number represents 75 out of 77 highly selected scientists. There are many many more climate scientists than that. Go to petitionproject.org and see a list of over 31,000 scientists in the US alone who know AGW is a farce. Here is one of them.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
These greenies will lie, cheat and sell their mother if it would advance the AGW agenda and Grifter just proves that.
Gary F: The earth has been cooling for over a decade now, while the CO2 level has increased. Funny that you should want proof. Weren't you the one who said science has nothing to with proof, just yesterday?
In direct answer to the question: No ,I never have. And I didn't buy into it when it was an imminent Ice Age, either.
Life magazine of January 3, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”
Gary F:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
You see I back up everything with facts. Notice I used raw data, and I stayed away from El Nino.
I have posted this often. Gary you prove out the old adage, "A word to the wise is sufficient." With you it is going to take a while.
CR: Tell them the whole truth. That recorded history started in around 1987 when a full set of satellites was installed.
Jay, you can see what a bunch of liars and misfits these greenies are. Here is an example of how the Chief Greenie, James Hansen a man who used to head NASA and now has retired to devote his life to full time Communistic causes, change temperatures to deceive congressmen and citizens.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
Gary F: Definition of PROOF by dictionary.com
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
Apparently, your college education did not assist you in the English language. I think you should get your money back.
I did not use a computer model. If you knew ANYTHING about the environmental subject you would know. The source of the data is well known to those of the environmental enthusiasts. I would explain it to you but I ran out of crayons. However, I don't think anyone who can't comprehend what proof is and what evidence is, can comprehend the weightier subjects. Leave that to us knowlegable people. Phil Jones has had to admit that the Earth is cooling. James Hansen has had to admit the Earth is cooling. Where have you been. did you go back to your birthplace, under a rock?
Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Oh! You mean the hysteria about global warming being about taxes or a New World Order. That hysteria! I don't buy into that hysteria.
No I do not believe in Global Warming I like CMV have been around long enough to notice any changes, and I have not, if it takes sophisticated measuring instruments to measure the small differences, why should I worry when it makes exactly no difference to my life.
Nope! Too much corruption among the handful of scientists leading the charge on this scam.
It's all about fame and fortune.
No, but I accept the valid arguments. You have none so STFU
No, it's just the kool aid drinkers who buy into that nonsense.
Global Climate Change is real whether you DA deniers believe it or not. It is scientifically proven. 97% of climatologists are convinced the current acceleration of GW is from human emissions. The majority of all the worlds scientific organizations support this view.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Dor...
You can totally ignore the deniers BS as it has no foundation in fact and sometimes it is flat out lies
.http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why...
What we are experiencing with global climate change, and what we will experience in the near future is due to a build up of greenhouse gases particularly coal and oil, for over 200 years
You can deny reality all you want, but you are just lying to yourself
