3
   

Myth of man-made global warming

 
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Sat 17 Jan, 2015 02:44 am
@MontereyJack,
ok, well you are a litle bit right about the Ad Hominem.
However, Gore IS a psychopathic killer!
Would you trust a psychopathic killer? I won't! And I mean all this litterally!

Further more you, again, cling to the messages of the authorities!

Why???????????????????????????????????????????

What reallyu is going on is that there is an ICE AGE coming,
Believe me or not, but I hope to help yopu by saying this, that you willbe prepared for what is coming!

What you do with the infomration is all up to you!


Or, you can go on beliieving all the official bull-**** about global warming that is coming out!


All up to you, mate!
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  2  
Sun 18 Jan, 2015 04:14 pm
Well, well, well....

Quote:
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right [/color]


Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’
But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error
Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html


0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Sun 18 Jan, 2015 04:15 pm
Hmmmmm

0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Sun 18 Jan, 2015 04:25 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
And here's another nail in the coffin for the denialists, from NOAA, their latest update for 2014:


Ahum!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote:
More Global Warming Hot Air, As Climate Fundamentalists Continue Inflating a False Reality

Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire

We’re told this week that Washington’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) had finally crunched its numbers for 2014, and Al Gore is a very happy man, as are the armies of amateur climate experts who take government scientific announcements as gospel.


Yes, NOAA speaks! Who dares to defy the great and powerful NOAA.

There’s only one big problem with all of this. I really love dolphins, and all sea life, but at the end of the day, NOAA is still an arm of the US federal government, and therefore, it’s can be just as political as any other federally-funded agency.

So why is the government-media-complex pushing so hard with global warming now?


The top two inflated celebrity scientists fronting the UN IPCC public relations drive, Penn State’s Michael Mann and East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit head Phil Jones – have both been exposed long ago as failures and were caught through ‘Climategate’ manipulating data sets in order to fit their own government-funded and highly biased theoretical theses on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. Michael Mann was so damaged by Climategate that he eventually went on a legal rampage, attempting to sue his way out of the scandal’s orbit. On top of all this, Mann, the UN’s IPCC rock star ‘climate scientist’, had his fictional “hockey stick” global warming graph – thoroughly debunked by multiple scientists and academics - read just one of those critiques here. Mann’s contrived hockey stick graph was made famous by Al Gore’s since discredited 2006 ‘documentary’ entitled, An Inconvenient Truth (a more ironic title couldn’t be found).

A decade on, a number of experts are growing tired of how creative computer-modeled fantasies are influencing long-term policy and carbon taxation schemes. Veteran meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, explains:

There has not been any significant man-made global warming in the past, there is none now, and there is no reason to expect any in the future,” he said. “The computer models that predicted the warming have failed to verify. There has been no warming in 18 years. The ice at the poles is stable. The polar bears are increasing. The oceans are not rising.”

http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/01/18/more-global-warming-hot-air-as-climate-fundamentalists-continue-inflating-reality/





0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Sun 18 Jan, 2015 04:27 pm
http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/get-attachment-615-587x307.jpg
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Sun 18 Jan, 2015 09:54 pm
Monkeyjerk now on ignore along with paradork, izzythepoop and several other super losers.....
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Sun 18 Jan, 2015 10:16 pm
@gungasnake,
see following post
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Sun 18 Jan, 2015 10:18 pm
@gungasnake,
fine, snaKKKe, ignore me if you want, you'll just never see how thoroughly you're discredited, and what a laughing stock you are because everybody else has seen it and knows.

And quahog, I see you're arguing from authority yourself, which you claim is unreliable because authorities always lie. Your authority supposedly has credibility because he founded the Weather Channel, a television broadcast organization of professional meteorologists who give you the straight poop about the weather, and so by extension their founder must have credibility. SnaKKKe cited the same guy with pretty much the same line some time ago. Bad choice. Pretty much everything he says is simply not true. AND the Weather Channel, his baby, cuts him off at the knees. They, the professional meteroroligists disagree with him straight down the line.

This is THE OFFICIAL POSITION STATEMENT OF THE WEATHER CHANNEL ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE:

Quote:
.Global Warming: The Weather Channel Position Statement..Published Oct 30 2014 01:25 PM EDT weather.com......Introduction
The scientific issue of global warming can be broken down into three main questions: Is global warming a reality? Are human activities causing it? What are the prospects for the future?

Warming: Fact or Fiction?
The climate of the earth is indeed warming, with an increase of approximately 1 - 1 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century, more than half of that occurring since the 1970s. The warming has taken place as averaged globally and annually; significant regional and seasonal variations exist.

Impacts can already be seen, especially in the Arctic, with melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and rapid retreat and thinning of sea ice, all of which are affecting human populations as well as animals and vegetation. There and elsewhere, rising sea level is increasing coastal vulnerability.

There is evidence in recent years of a direct linkage between the larger-scale warming and shorter-term phenomena such as heat waves and precipitation extremes. The jury is out on exactly what effects global warming is having or will have upon tropical cyclones or tornadoes.

(MORE: weather.com Environment page | Weather Underground Climate page)

Human Influence
To what extent the current warming is due to human activity is complicated because large and sometimes sudden climate changes have occurred throughout our planet's history -- most of them before humans could possibly have been a factor. Furthermore, the sun/atmosphere/land/ocean "climate system" is extraordinarily complex, and natural variability on time scales from seconds to decades and beyond is always occurring.

However, it is known that burning of fossil fuels injects additional carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect," a process in which our atmosphere keeps the earth's surface much warmer than it would otherwise be.

More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.

Humans are also changing the climate on a more localized level. The replacement of vegetation by buildings and roads is causing temperature increases through what's known as the urban heat island effect. In addition, land use changes are affecting impacts from weather phenomena. For example, urbanization and deforestation can cause an increased tendency for flash floods and mudslides from heavy rain. Deforestation also produces a climate change "feedback" by depleting a source which absorbs carbon dioxide.

The Future
Potential outcomes range from moderate and manageable to extreme and catastrophic, depending on a number of factors including location and type of effect, and amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Not every location and its inhabitants will be affected equally, but the more the planet warms, the fewer "winners" and the more "losers" there will be as a result of the changes in climate. The potential exists for the climate to reach a "tipping point," if it hasn't already done so, beyond which radical and irreversible changes occur.

The bottom line is that with the rate of greenhouse gas emissions increasing, a significant warming trend is expected to also continue. This warming will manifest itself in a variety of ways, and shifts in climate could occur quickly, so while society needs to continue to wrestle with the difficult issues involved with mitigation of the causes of global warming, an increased focus should be placed on resiliency and adaptation to the effects of global warming given the sensitivity of civilizations and ecosystems to rapid climate change.

Copyright: The Weather Channel


Any questrions, quahog? snaKKKe? Wrong again, boys.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 12:42 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Monkeyjerk now on ignore along with paradork, izzythepoop and several other super losers.....



yep! Me too!!
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 01:07 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
The scientific issue of global warming can be broken down into three main questions: Is global warming a reality? Are human activities causing it? What are the prospects for the future?


We can break it into those three main questions, but only an idiot would. The best break down is these four questions,

Is global warming a reality?

If it is what portion of it can reasonably be concluded to be because of humans?

Can humans under current science and current legal frameworks institute changes in the global temperatures in the positive?

Is the most productive action working to change the make up of the atmosphere or is it rather adapting to the warmer planet?

The bias of the Weather channel is obvious, in is baked into their shitty questions.

MontereyJack
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 01:48 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
gungasnakkke says:
Quote:

Quote:
Monkeyjerk now on ignore along with paradork, izzythepoop and several other super losers.....


To which quahog replies:
Quote:

yep! Me too!!


It must be extraordinarily comforting for snaKKKe and quahog to put people on ignore, because that way they never have to see how thoroughly their nutball posts arre debunked, discredited, and eviscereated as they always are, and they can just continue to exist blindly in their self-congratulatory ego bubbles.

0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 02:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
not sure exactly what you're arguing here. Read the quote again (or for the first time). Your first two questions aren't significantly different from theirs, and your third and fourth are subsumed in their third (and if I remember correctly from other posts on the topic, you're in favor of concentrating on trying to adapt to living in a much hotter world, and they suggest increased emphasis on that, so I'm unclear what you're bitching about). And they, as people who have had to deal with the question for years, have clearly looked hard at the evidence and drawn conclusions that agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus. That's not bias. That's rationality. Not all sides of a disagreement necessarily have equal weight.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 02:29 pm
@MontereyJack,
How many of the worlds total scientists agree on, what ever you want to call it now, global warming or climate change?
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 02:31 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
How many of the worlds total scientists agree on, what ever you want to call it now, global warming or climate change?


But that doesn't matter, does it?!
parados
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 02:38 pm
@Baldimo,
Show me one scientist that doesn't think the world is warming?
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 02:41 pm
There ya go!


31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs


http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

http://www.petitionproject.org/
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 02:48 pm
Baldimo asks:
Quote:
How many of the worlds total scientists agree on, what ever you want to call it now, global warming or climate change?


That's kind of an ambiguous question, because there are hundreds of fields of science, and a lot of them have no direct (or indirect) connection with the question, or any particular expertise in dealing with it. For example, as far as I can see, materials science and materials scientists (one of the hot fields today at MIT) doesn't deal with it at all. However, as I remember, the studies I've seen show that climate scientists in particular agree somewhere above 97%, and other physical scientists are somewhat lower but still above 90%. And every major scientific association in the world supports the fact of anthropogenic climate change. Anecdotally, I have a friend who's a restoration biologist, and she thinks the denialists are wack. You might want to go to the NOAA and NASA websites and see what they say on the matter. They are NOT skeptical.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 02:48 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Sure it should matter. If there are 100,000 scientists on earth, and only 10,000 agree that Global warming/climate change is real, then that isn't a majority of scientists. It's a valid question.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 02:50 pm
@parados,
More lefty double speak. You guys are bad about this, ask a question and they throw a question right back at ya without even trying to answer the question you asked. Bad form Parados.

Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 02:51 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Sure it should matter. If there are 100,000 scientists on earth, and only 10,000 agree that Global warming/climate change is real, then that isn't a majority of scientists. It's a valid question.


Of course not! It is the popularity fallacy!
History has shown us that this is very simply NOT true!
ONLY evidence is important! Not how many scientists ( they are stupid by definition! ) agree! That is stupid!
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 12:24:39