Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30878 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31859 Apr 3, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
One often ignored consequence of global climate change is that the Northern Hemisphere is becoming warmer than the Southern Hemisphere, which could significantly alter tropical precipitation patterns, according to a new study by climatologists from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Washington, Seattle.
Such a shift could increase or decrease seasonal rainfall in areas such as the Amazon, sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia, leaving some areas wetter and some drier than today.
"A key finding is a tendency to shift tropical rainfall northward, which could mean increases in monsoon weather systems in Asia or shifts of the wet season from south to north in Africa and South America," said UC Berkeley graduate student Andrew R. Friedman, who led the analysis.
-Science Daily
fyi.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#31860 Apr 3, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
...... a not-insignificant number of people believe that President Obama is the anti-Christ (13%).....
Pres. Obama isn't the anti-christ. Pres. Obama only gets a salary of $400,000 per year(now kicks back 5%).
The first POTUS who gets a salary of $666,000 per year........ now you know the mark of the anti-christ beast.

Oh, oh! I really blew the lid completely off the Revelation!

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#31861 Apr 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Seven years? Hey Steve, I remember 8 percent as deniers aka dismissive in a recent Yale poll. So just for you:
In this update on Global Warming's Six Americas, we report that the Alarmed have grown from 10 percent of the American adult population in 2010 to 16 percent in 2012. At the same time, the Dismissive have decreased in size, from 16 percent in 2010 to 8 percent in 2012. The report focuses on how the six groups perceive the benefits and costs of reducing fossil fuel use or global warming; their support for different national climate change and energy policies; and their beliefs about who has influence over the decisions that elected officials make.
Read the whole pdf here:
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Six...
QED, deniers are shrinking in numbers. You can join the Alarmed, if you cared.
Your Yale propaganda lists six categories instead of five. Add the lowest two, Doubtful & Dismissive, together and you get 21%.
PHD

Montalba, TX

#31862 Apr 4, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Your 'I KNOW you are but what am I??' "argument" is exactly what I'd expect from a nine-year-old. Why don't you just leave? You have nothing to contribute and only childish insults to offer.
Trolls call everyone else "trolls." That's what trolls DO. Dismissed.
So what are you? You added zero to anything that could be considered intelligent. So why do you call everyone else a troll when they disagree with your scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble? Insults, why you’re an insult with your useless post. Now go away you’re dismissed.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#31863 Apr 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
How's the "sea level rise has declined" thing holding up professor Excel?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/03/1...
Thanks for the post, you inspired me to fire up Excel and make a chart that shows what sea level has done over the last 20 years:
http://oi50.tinypic.com/357ix78.jpg
What I have pointed out in the chart is that the rate of sea level rise has dropped when the first ten years of the satellite record is compared with this last decade. The large swings of the past two years don't change that much.

__________

Oh yes the Rob Painting article. The original blog by Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group

NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/...

is instructive because they chose the phrase "Pothole on the road to higher seas". What their choice of words tells us is what it is that they want to see happen. It tells us what their bias is. They didn't term it as a remission or reprieve. No it's clear from what they wrote that they are cheer leaders of a global warming disaster.

One would think that an intermission or postponement of what had been steady sea level rise to inundation of our cities would be welcomed with a more positive attitude. But no, the hiatus was viewed as negative.

One has to wonder why. A respite on the road to disaster which is usually viewed as a breather in which to gather the forces to stave off such an unwanted turn of events. So what are we to make of these traitors who cheer the return of what they view as a disastrous trend?

The Colorado University and JPL scientists don't have the market cornered on this sort of perfidious attitude. Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, said in 2009 of a ten year lull in rising temperatures:

"... upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried".

Not "I" but "we". Very interesting. What sort of a conspiracy group is he a member of, that he said "we"? Why is his group "worried" that a disastrous trend might not continue? As the director of an important information gathering organization of climate data, what sort of "Climate" is he fostering in that group?

Most of what goes on in any organization isn't on display for the general public. We don't know what they say on the phone or discuss over lunch. We only get a glimpse here and there. We take our clues from what they say in off-hand remarks. And what climate scientists put on display for public consumption isn't very pretty. Anyone with any common sense can see what they are all about.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#31864 Apr 4, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll bet you're in one of these minorities, too.
"Americans love their conspiracy theories. Public Policy Polling asked voters to weigh in on 20 more infamous ones, and the results show that a not-insignificant number of people believe that President Obama is the anti-Christ (13%), Big Foot exists (14%), and the planet is secretly ruled by the New World Order (28%; 4% think our societies are actually ruled by "lizard people"). Among the other results:
21% believe the government covered up a UFO crash in Roswell; 29% believe in aliens
6% believe Osama bin Laden is alive; 5% think Paul McCartney has been dead for decades
15% think there's mind-control technology hidden in TV signals
37% think global warming is a hoax
7% think the moon landing was faked
15% think Big Pharma develops new diseases as a way to make money
14% see the CIA's hand in the 1980s crack epidemic"
-Newser
The largest following in your list above is:
37% Think Global Warming is a hoax.

I think it's more of a scam, but hoax or scam, I think the 37% or 20% whichever poll you subscribe to will grow.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#31866 Apr 4, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
... a lot of blather.
What you retired engineer types always do is ignore the science behind the data you are looking at, and then spout conspiracy theories rather than recognise your own arrogance when your results don't match those done by people who spend their whole lives looking at the science behind the data.

Foolish, pathetic and worrying in that you get attention.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#31867 Apr 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
What you retired engineer types always do is ignore the science behind the data you are looking at, and then spout conspiracy theories rather than recognise your own arrogance when your results don't match those done by people who spend their whole lives looking at the science behind the data.
Foolish, pathetic and worrying in that you get attention.
Here's the data
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel2/...
You can plot it out yourself if you don't like what my Excel spreadsheet comes up with.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#31868 Apr 4, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Don't you even know who your idiotic, childish trollposts are describing, PHuD?
I disagree. Its idiotic, childish trollposts are describing,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend'.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31869 Apr 4, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Yale propaganda lists six categories instead of five. Add the lowest two, Doubtful & Dismissive, together and you get 21%.
"...Global Warming's Six Americas..."

"The report focuses on how the six groups'..."

Have you always had trouble reading? Or is it math that throws you?

Yale is a fine university. You are the propagandist. And not a real good one.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31870 Apr 4, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
The largest following in your list above is:
37% Think Global Warming is a hoax.
I think it's more of a scam, but hoax or scam, I think the 37% or 20% whichever poll you subscribe to will grow.
Yes, that's the largest group among the nutcases. But to be fair, most of these are not nutcases, but people confused and fooled by the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry, Yale not included.

But we can see that you are not one to be fooled by Yale, or JPL, or Colorado U. After all, what the hell do they know?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31871 Apr 4, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Yale propaganda lists six categories instead of five. Add the lowest two, Doubtful & Dismissive, together and you get 21%.
haha.. Repeating the Yale study:

In this update on Global Warming's Six Americas, we report that the Alarmed have grown from 10 percent of the American adult population in 2010 to 16 percent in 2012. At the same time, the Dismissive have decreased in size, from 16 percent in 2010 to 8 percent in 2012.

Your favorite is the decreasing minority. However - the Alarmed have grown from 10 percent to 16 percent of the American adult population in two years, i.e. 3 percent per year. Also -

These three groups – the Alarmed, Concerned and Cautious – currently comprise 70 percent of the American public. Although they range in certainty about the reality and dangers of climate change, they are similarly inclined to believe it is a real threat that should be addressed. Thus, some level of support for action is the predominant view among the majority of Americans.

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31872 Apr 4, 2013
And the Dismissive aka deniers have decreased in size from 16 percent to 8 percent in two years, i.e. 4 percent per year decrease while the Alarmed 3 percent per year increase.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31873 Apr 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Yes, that northern hemisphere landmass problem has been around a long time.

I remember, as a kid, the comic book issue where Superman had to put an asteroid in the South Pacific to keep the world from tipping over, as a counterbalance.

Oh, where is Superman now, when we need him so much? He could probably fix AGW somehow.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31874 Apr 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>To Steve:

What you retired engineer types always do is ignore the science behind the data you are looking at, and then spout conspiracy theories rather than recognise your own arrogance when your results don't match those done by people who spend their whole lives looking at the science behind the data.
Foolish, pathetic and worrying in that you get attention.
Agree with all except the engineer part. Even though your credibility is extreme.

I personally didn't see/smell the engineer in the gord or SteveC. The former appeared a technician sans science aand mathematics. Steve on the other hand came across as retired insurance salesman. I even told him so.

Any degreed and retired engineer would know the data are everything to respect, especially their work depended on the trend as described by the scientists' data..
PHD

Montalba, TX

#31875 Apr 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Any degreed and retired engineer would know the data are everything to respect, especially their work depended on the trend as described by the scientists' data..
Ok, so why do you only know scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble?

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31877 Apr 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Any degreed and retired engineer would know the data are everything to respect, especially their work depended on the trend as described by the scientists' data..
From what I see, there is not much scientific debate going on in this forum, and myself a data scientist and software engineer, can assure you that any good scientist instinctually questions the validity of data. If anything, it is disrespectful of others' work not to. Should the data stand up to scrutiny, then it's the best seal of approval one could hope for as a scientist. In the context of this debate, data supports that the earth is warming, but projecting future senerios, like with all projections, is an imperfect calculation. Let's not forget that, not for personal feelings fail to acknowledge both the shortcomings and insights present in climate modeling software algorithms. Any honest reading of what science has to offer in this regard points to one thing- climate change is happening and majority of climate models show it likely the planet will catestrophically warm in the next couple of centuries if carbon emissions continue at the current rate, but what of the unknowns? A climate alarmist is as guilty of unscientific thought as is a complete denier. There is much that such models cannot account for.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31878 Apr 4, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I see, there is not much scientific debate going on in this forum, and myself a data scientist and software engineer, can assure you that any good scientist instinctually questions the validity of data. If anything, it is disrespectful of others' work not to. Should the data stand up to scrutiny, then it's the best seal of approval one could hope for as a scientist. In the context of this debate, data supports that the earth is warming, but projecting future senerios, like with all projections, is an imperfect calculation. Let's not forget that, not for personal feelings fail to acknowledge both the shortcomings and insights present in climate modeling software algorithms. Any honest reading of what science has to offer in this regard points to one thing- climate change is happening and majority of climate models show it likely the planet will catestrophically warm in the next couple of centuries if carbon emissions continue at the current rate, but what of the unknowns? A climate alarmist is as guilty of unscientific thought as is a complete denier. There is much that such models cannot account for.
LOL. What do you expect from people with lives outside Topix trying to correct the lies of paid deniers? A hard day's night.

Science marches on while the deniers fight for public confusion. C'est la vie!
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#31879 Apr 4, 2013
josh in need of education wrote:
A climate alarmist is as guilty of unscientific thought as is a complete denier.
Stating that science is as low down guilty as political AGW deniers is throwing 'all your reasonableness' out the window.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31880 Apr 4, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>To Josh:
Stating that science is as low down guilty as political AGW deniers is throwing 'all your reasonableness' out the window.
Agreed.

Thanks for taking care of that nonsense. This Josh poster reminds me of

"...vigorously defending statements or positions they know to be illogical or untrue."

He did that more than once. A troll!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min Le Jimbo 190,544
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min TSM 1,264,937
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min woodtick57 194,792
News Obama's EPA Rules Could Elevate Climate Change ... 1 hr fatbacksx 8
News Trump says won't be - throwing punches' in US R... 3 hr Jeff Brightone 1
News Your morning jolt: Mormonism is more like Islam... (Oct '11) 12 hr Catholic24 81
News Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal 18 hr Go Blue Forever 134
More from around the web