Ah those Nafoomers, they love them some Dan Mullen.
- Thread starter DesotoCountyDawg
- Start date
- Status
Wow, anyone can make a chart with Microsoft Excel and publish it.<div>
</div><div>Here is the chart that is accepted by scientific consensus, however:</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>Here is the chart that is accepted by scientific consensus, however:</div><div>
</div><div>
This is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (actual scientific data). It basically a measure of the temperature of the Pacific Ocean as a whole and the pattern lasts for decades before it changes. When in the negative (blue) the climate and weather tend to cool down and when positive (red) there tends to be a warmer climate around most of the world. If you notice since the late 70's when all the Global Warming theories started its been a warm cycle. Now it looks to be a possible switch around to a negative phase in the cycle. Bottom line is there is more going on here that people don't take in account that causes the climate to be the way it is and for people to think we have some kind of control over how the climate functions is being completely delusional.
I have a problem when scientists and politician who have agendas start spouting off erroneous manipulated data to somehow convince people that we are badass enough as humans to 17 up a planets climate.
I could not have said it better myself. Did you really just type that and then put those charts up? Wow.
I recall seeing him, his wife and Byrne walk out and talk to the Rowdies for a couple of minutes during halftime as they made their way to courtside where they talked with a few other people. I thought I saw them go back through the portal behind the goal shortly after. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but assuming that's what happened, then Mullen only put on the SWAT gear for a few seconds for a few laughs. What's the big 17'ing deal? It's not like he was shirtless in the student section for the whole game before helping throw drinks at the Ole Miss fans.
Your chart uses an average of a 30-year "cooling" period as the baseline, then compares everything to that. Incredibly misleading data.
Not to mention we are talking about fractions of fractions of degrees here.
Is the climate changing? Of course it is. It always is, and always has. Is man influencing it? Not to any degree that is even measureable. Just look at climate patterns from centuries ago, before SUV's and hairspray.
The "green" movement is just a political movement. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing wrong with it - everyone has the right to pursue their own agenda. But don't hide or disguise it in the name of "saving the earth". Just be up front about it and quit trying to guilt people into changing their behavior to satisfy a leftist political agenda that seeks to undermine corporations.
Not to mention we are talking about fractions of fractions of degrees here.
Is the climate changing? Of course it is. It always is, and always has. Is man influencing it? Not to any degree that is even measureable. Just look at climate patterns from centuries ago, before SUV's and hairspray.
The "green" movement is just a political movement. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing wrong with it - everyone has the right to pursue their own agenda. But don't hide or disguise it in the name of "saving the earth". Just be up front about it and quit trying to guilt people into changing their behavior to satisfy a leftist political agenda that seeks to undermine corporations.
I guess the coach can't have a little fun with the students. He needs to be in a dress shirt and penny loafers softly clapping.
a new source of data (red) for the last 50-100 years. AND, why do they remove the original data source (blue) completely, and solely use the new data source (red) the last 25 or so years. It seems to be pretty convenient that the stark upswing coincided with the new data being introduced.
I understand that the red data probably doesnt have accurate records that old, but it completely removes any credibility from the graph when you change sources of data and then argue for the change in results that is portrayed. Why don't they just use the same data source throughout (the blue data)? I learned those principles of science in elementary school.
I'm sure actually have a good argument (I hope), but that second graph is ridiculous.
I understand that the red data probably doesnt have accurate records that old, but it completely removes any credibility from the graph when you change sources of data and then argue for the change in results that is portrayed. Why don't they just use the same data source throughout (the blue data)? I learned those principles of science in elementary school.
I'm sure actually have a good argument (I hope), but that second graph is ridiculous.
It's the good ol surface temperature trick. Most temperature recording stations were once in rural areas or less populated areas. Urban sprawl has expanded around many areas where surface temperatures are recorded. The "heat island" effect starts to come into play and wham you have increased surface temperatures. It's a nice little trick that they throw in the data.
It's amazing how related CO2 and temperature are related. Even hundreds of thousands of years ago it went up and down sharply. Those damn cavemen and their SUV's.
the second graph used data (represented in blue) from "tree rings, corals, ice cores, and historical records" for 900+ years. Then adds in thermometer data (represented in red) for the last 100 years. Then the last 30 years are solely thermometer data (no more blue data used).
When does the noticeable change start? about 100 years ago
When does the crazy-*** drastic change take place? about 30 years ago
How about that for a coincidence.
When does the noticeable change start? about 100 years ago
When does the crazy-*** drastic change take place? about 30 years ago
How about that for a coincidence.
when "the davinci code" came out. All these people suddenly thought they were smarter than everyone else around them and had to personally enlighten you. The main difference is GW is its so ambiguous that its impossible to prove or disprove.... So the argument rages on.
Whether or not global warming is a total sham, its been all over the news recently that as global warming theories have been put together, dissenting opinions have been covered up. And data supporting global warming has been "massaged" to do so.
http://www.chattanoogan.c...icles/article_168888.asp
http://www.chattanoogan.c...icles/article_168888.asp
that ive never heard of (the Chattanoogan). who is this author, "Kirk Schermerhorn from Hixson (TN i presume)"?
DesotoCountyDawg said:
I agree. They also do not take into effect the amount of asphalt, concrete or urban areas contribution to official temperatures.
George Carlin once said we are a conceited group of creatures to think we could affect the planet and that the planet would one day brush us off like a bunch of fleas. I don't think he meant it would just get hot.
- Status