You are confusing science with pseudoscience. Global warming "science" worked backward from a conclusion to evidence to back that conclusion. Data was manipulated, hidden, and misinterpreted. Again, if you would just do a little research you will see how the historical record has been changed to support their position. They admit to it and tell you why it was necessary.
Man Made Globing Warming,
- Thread starter RacerX.ksr
- Start date
I’m saying that without a crisis there is no need for the number of climatologists.
You don’t agree with that? The research money dries up, they would essentially put themselves out of a job.
Yep, I remember. I was there, actually. I have the recordings of the first meetings where the climatologists all got together and formulated their brilliant plan to deceive everybody.
You proved my point with this post. Group think is what gets us in trouble almost every time and you epitomize group think, congrats.
And evidence that was not in line with group think was thrown out as not being properly calculated or tainted with bad info.
Perfect. You're following the MO to a tee. Deflect all you want, we both know who is better read on the subject. Perhaps if you had read more you would know that your little joke is especially funny when you take into account the leaked emails that prove data was manipulated to cover up the truth. Did you just forget about that?
"Not mentioned is the during the 79 million year Cretaceous Period, global average temperatures of 95º F (35º C) existed. Compared to the various max temps for the claimed current warming which are claimed to be "disastrous" they are in fact mild compared to a period known to have brought millions of species into existence (at much higher temperatures). Also, check your local sea level. Most people will be from 100 to 1100 feet above sea level. If the claimed rise is 10 feet most people will still be living comfortably 90 feet above the local water levels."
Reading this thread is what I imagine diarrhea would look like it if were an internet message board.
Group think? What in my post exhibited group think?
It certainly isn't a bunch of right-wing internet experts on climatology thinking they know more than actual scientists who study it for a living - no, now that wouldn't be a form of group think, would it?
You guys are funny. I notice it's the same group that posts in the circle jerk known as the political thread.
I was well aware of the leaked emails - that's what prompted my post. The thing is, you think the leaked emails is the end of the story, or a representation of the entire body of work in climatology. I don't.
And that wouldn't exist on the other side? Why discount that? There are plenty of other research projects available for people with the qualifications necessary to do this research.
It is a simple case to make if you see data that says we are not the dominant force behind global warming. Can you show us what data you're seeing?
Again with the tactics. You either oversimplify or exaggerate the truth in an effort to distort the facts. The "entire" body of work is what discredits it as a scam meant to achieve wealth redistribution.
You have no idea how much data I've looked at. I was interested in the climate from an early age when I read about global cooling in a Highlight magazine at school. It's not just the data that supports my assertion, sometimes it's the lack of data, or the manner in which the data was collected.
If you would take the time to do even a small amount of research on your own you would find that there are many prominent climatologists who have came to the same conclusions. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than some of the people you believe, just that I'm more truthful.
Explain to me why around 1990 the number of recording stations went from around 12,000 worldwide to around 6,000. Most of those lost were in rural areas where the temperature is several degrees cooler than the urban stations. Even the doomsdayers admit to a urban heat island effect. What does your superior mind tell you that would do to average global temperatures?
.
Data states the planet has gone thru many heating and cooling cycles since it was formed. Do you agree with that?
Therefore the climate is always changing regardless if humans are here or not. Agree?
I submit the end result is about redistribution of wealth and data is manipulated to prove a narrative that don’t exist. Do you think data can be manipulated?
Once again I will ask you to tell me what is the #1 thing humans can do to stop the damage you believe we are causing. Every thing has a cause and effect. If we have affected the climate, how did we do it? If we know what we did, we can stop it. You agree?
Al Gore has got wealthy on this issue and contributes more to damage our climate in one day than I do in my lifetime, yet you people are fine with that and believe everything he says while he has proven to lie numerous times with assinine predictions. But you guys are willing to be taxed out the wazzoo while India and China belch out tons of CO2 and bring a coal fired plant on line dailey. To me, that drinking the koolaid without s single independent thought.
Remember — no matter where you go, there you are.
Could it be because of more people ln very close area AND concrete and asphalt everywhere instead of dirt? Nah, can’t be, gotta be man made climate change.
I hate litter! I hate companies that break the law and dump sewage into waterways and pollute illegally. If you throw cigarette butts out your window you should be flogged.
Having said that, if we go back to pre industrial revolution carbon emissions, we go back to the stone ages and a lot of poor people die.
Having said that, if we go back to pre industrial revolution carbon emissions, we go back to the stone ages and a lot of poor people die.
But but but, the United States is the only place that is causing our planet to burn up. :scream:
He left office worth about $2 million and now he is worth over $100 million. Coincidence? I think not.
That is I think what liberals want. After all, they started the planned parenthood organization mostly for that reason.
The scientists who know so much about climate, can't seem to figure out where all the heat is that they predicted. So they tell us it's being hidden in the deep oceans. That's convenient. We certainly can't go there to check on it. What we can do though is remember that warm water, like warm air, rises.
Those same scientists can't figure out where all the CO2 is that should be in the atmosphere due to car emissions. That can't figure out why the temperature hasn't risen at the same rate the CO2 level has risen yet they still say it is the cause of increased heat.
The only thing settled about this science is that it's not really science at all.
Those same scientists can't figure out where all the CO2 is that should be in the atmosphere due to car emissions. That can't figure out why the temperature hasn't risen at the same rate the CO2 level has risen yet they still say it is the cause of increased heat.
The only thing settled about this science is that it's not really science at all.
Another lie they tell us. The polar ice cap melts, the ocean rises and cities flood. What happens when you freeze a bottle of water. The ice is taking more space than the water did, therefore the polar ice cap is displacing water, if it melts, the ocean water actually will recede. It takes less water to fill a space occupied by ice.
That's only true for the ice that is displacing water now. The ice that is above sea level would contribute to ocean rise. However, there has been no measurable acceleration of ocean rise since we've been measuring it. We're still coming out of an Ice Age and the oceans have been rising since then.
Dont avoid the question. The overwhelming evidence is on the side of human causation. Make the case that we are not using hard facts.
The ice above sea level still came from the sea. It is floating in some. I doubt it reaches to the sea floor
I believe he's talking about ice pack that's on top of earth...
You know why you won't. Because you cant make the case that we aren't the dominant force behind global warming using facts. The weight of the evidence is entirely against you.
I've been making my case. The same gene you're lacking that allows you to be misled must also prevent you from seeing it.
No skippy, the weight of the evidence is against you. Here's a hint for you. Check out the difference in satellite temperature readings and those from ground based stations.