Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

[tina anne]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
"Discover" being the key word here, I suspect that Tina gets much of her argument (paraphrased, but nearly verbatim) from the Discovery Institute.

I have to check out the Discovery Insitute. They may be stealing quotes from me.

[tina anne]

Wallop10 wrote:

<quoted text>
Tina quotes from Rush Limbaugh a lot. No joke,
That about sums it up.

Care to show something I quoted from Rush Limbaugh? I bet you cannot come up with even one actual quote.

[ChromiuMan]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
With you the correct term would be an "uneducated idiot".
As for the subject of fluid displacement, that is your opinion and not backed by anything more than the opinion of you and a few others who do not want to face the facts and are ignoring the proof all along the shore line.

I don't dote on degrees to validate the legitimacy and/or accuracy of my (or your) posts. Are you not the one who poo-poos the consensus of thousands whose degrees are far more advanced and relevant than your own?

Regarding fluid displacement? Not opinion. The proof is in your posts, my dear. You could be the world's greatest at drawing a bucket of water and an ice cube in a CAD program, but face it - you're lousy at drawing practical and accurate conclusions.

[Wallop10]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Care to show something I quoted from Rush Limbaugh? I bet you cannot come up with even one actual quote.

Well you admitted Rush was a hero.

and you made some pretty crazy statements about

-- no scientists believe in global warming
-- you keep referring to the break-in of the CRU emails as a scandal when ALL the investigations cleared the scientists.

Was I unfairly blaming ole Rush for your lack of basic information/knowledge?

I've seen Rush Limbaugh too --what a nasty egotistical blowbag. I know conservatives who can't stand him even when they say they agree with his stance.

[Wallop10]

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:

I'm glad that I survived the "mini-ice age" that scientists predicted in the early 70s to occur around 2000!

A few climatologists questioned if the discover of aerosols (from pollution) would be stronger than the CO2 effect, and quickly reversed themselves as better measurements came in, including from satellites.

The majority of published climatologists always said CO2 was the stronger force.

There never was ONE world renown science agency that said there was enough evidence to support global cooling as a threat.

Virtually ALL of them today say they have the evidence global warming is.

[Socialism is for Sissies]

Wallop10 wrote:

<quoted text>
A few climatologists questioned if the discover of aerosols (from pollution) would be stronger than the CO2 effect, and quickly reversed themselves as better measurements came in, including from satellites.
The majority of published climatologists always said CO2 was the stronger force.
There never was ONE world renown science agency that said there was enough evidence to support global cooling as a threat.
Virtually ALL of them today say they have the evidence global warming is.

What about that dreadful hole in the Ozone? Oh no!

[SpaceBlues]

Our future is melting before our very eyes.

Fiddling With The Data While The World Burns

When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing, and indeed pushing, climate ‘skepticism’, is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 “clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.”

Powell said:


Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

Adding:


Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

The notable US science writer Phil Plait “marveled” at Powell’s “persistence in unearthing the facts and figures”, saying:


His premise was simple: if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

But Powell’s findings were clear, says Plait:


There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

[tha Professor]

SpaceBlues wrote:

Our future is melting before our very eyes.
Fiddling With The Data While The World Burns
When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing, and indeed pushing, climate ‘skepticism’, is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 “clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.”
Powell said:
Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.
Adding:
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.
The notable US science writer Phil Plait “marveled” at Powell’s “persistence in unearthing the facts and figures”, saying:
His premise was simple: if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.
But Powell’s findings were clear, says Plait:
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.
When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

Absolutely awesome. This should put it beyond doubt for any sane, educated person and anyone not in the grip of Denierist fantasies.

Good work!

[tha Professor]

What is that, less than .2% of published scientists question global warming science?

That's a consensus and THEN some, folks!:)

[Rick]

There is only ONE major political party in THE WHOLE WORLD who still denies what 99.8% of the worlds Scientists know. Guess which one that is? Get your heads out of your asses GOP!

[Socialism is for Sissies]

Follow the grant money and you'll find junk science.

[tha Professor]

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:

Follow the grant money and you'll find junk science.

Follow Denierism and rightie politics, and you'll find the oil and energy companies. Giving out grants to fake "scientists" and "institutions" and "think tanks" and websites.

You won't follow that route, because it leads to your masters.

[Socialism is for Sissies]

tha Professor wrote:

<quoted text>
Follow Denierism and rightie politics, and you'll find the oil and energy companies. Giving out grants to fake "scientists" and "institutions" and "think tanks" and websites.
You won't follow that route, because it leads to your masters.

You won't fall the well established Laws of Physics and see what baloney your grant kings won't tell you.

The problem with those educated under liberal arts is that THEY are the ones too ignorant to seek the truth. Sadly, even common sense eludes those that believe this BS.

ALL weather is cyclical and man certainly is not capable of being significant enough to cause climate change. We are just like ants in a sugar bowl with repest to the earth as a whole.

The earth makes it's own adjustments. Proof, you say?

Look at the weather patterns before AND after major volcanic activity. These are beyond manmade events and even these do not produce global warming. Nay, they actually produce a cycle of cooling. But, hey, why trouble with science, right?

Plants crave CO2 creating a greener environment and canopies that "cool" the areas around them! Gasp!

Or a warming ocean that produces more clouds that, wait for it...shield and cool the surface as well as reflect the sun back out! Weather patterns bring things constantly back into check.

I could go on and on with more and more examples but you'll just push the buttons of utter and complete hogwash pushed out with agendas for controlling people.

Think back to your elementary school science classes. That stuff is still TRUE today!

[tha Professor]

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:

<quoted text>You won't fall the well established Laws of Physics and see what baloney your grant kings won't tell you.
The problem with those educated under liberal arts is that THEY are the ones too ignorant to seek the truth. Sadly, even common sense eludes those that believe this BS.
ALL weather is cyclical and man certainly is not capable of being significant enough to cause climate change. We are just like ants in a sugar bowl with repest to the earth as a whole.
The earth makes it's own adjustments. Proof, you say?
Look at the weather patterns before AND after major volcanic activity. These are beyond manmade events and even these do not produce global warming. Nay, they actually produce a cycle of cooling. But, hey, why trouble with science, right?
Plants crave CO2 creating a greener environment and canopies that "cool" the areas around them! Gasp!
Or a warming ocean that produces more clouds that, wait for it...shield and cool the surface as well as reflect the sun back out! Weather patterns bring things constantly back into check.
I could go on and on with more and more examples but you'll just push the buttons of utter and complete hogwash pushed out with agendas for controlling people.
Think back to your elementary school science classes. That stuff is still TRUE today!

Meaningless Denier junk posting, just about what I expected. Boring.

[Anonymous]

tha Professor wrote:

<quoted text>
Meaningless Denier junk posting, just about what I expected. Boring.

Man made global warming is clearly hype.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000...

The end of the cooler younger dryas was real massive global warming.

One that submerged the land bridges between Alaska & Siberia, England & Netherlands & even likely caused the Black sea deluge.

What we have now is merely gradual fluctuations between the centuries that are taken out to create hype.

[tha Professor]

Kraut Germ Virus Man wrote:

<quoted text>
Man made global warming is clearly hype.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000...
The end of the cooler younger dryas was real massive global warming.
One that submerged the land bridges between Alaska & Siberia, England & Netherlands & even likely caused the Black sea deluge.
What we have now is merely gradual fluctuations between the centuries that are taken out to create hype.

More junk. Yawwwwn...

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

Trying to educate climate deniers is like trying to drive turkeys. They just run in circles and gobble, gobble, gobble.

[Anonymous]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

Trying to educate climate deniers is like trying to drive turkeys. They just run in circles and gobble, gobble, gobble.

Here is a chart of the past 100,000 years of temperature & CO2 concentrations to show what hype we are spoon fed.

http://www.wmich.edu/corekids/images/icecored...

1. Note historically CO2 levels spiked AFTER global warming periods.

2. Note that current CO2 level spikes DO NOT correlate with the modern peak temperature..... Rather the Milankovitch cycle between Ice ages does.

[Wallop10]

Kraut Germ Virus Man wrote:

<quoted text>
Man made global warming is clearly hype.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000...
The end of the cooler younger dryas was real massive global warming.
One that submerged the land bridges between Alaska & Siberia, England & Netherlands & even likely caused the Black sea deluge.
What we have now is merely gradual fluctuations between the centuries that are taken out to create hype.

Er, you are taking ndcd.noaa.gov out of context.
Based on some right wing misinformation site not doubt.

Try this link from them.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pcn/fig6-...

Listen to where even the late Isaac Asimov saw this problem in the 1980s

[richard myars]

Lol noobs, this discussion is pointless. Ur bad and cant even understand the principles of climate science and then notice the ozone political agenda of how the economy and grammys are not unknown. Think it over