Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30932 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.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#31884 Apr 5, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority of climate models exaggerate the role of CO2. They all assign an inflated value for CO2 sensitivity. If their values for climate sensitivity were correct, temperatures should have gone up more than a mere 3/4°C over the last 160 years.
You totally ignore the science as usual.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-expecte...

I'm a pretty cynical person, but the arrogance and mendacity that has taken over the American right is astonishing. You don't have the balls to admit that you'd rather stick to your ideology and leave any problems with global warming to future generations, so you look for any pathetic excuse, even if it is a lie.

It's as if you think future generations will think there was somehow some doubt over the science and you were just on the wrong side. No, they will see that you were cynical liars who looked to their own comfort and excuses and left them the to deal with the consequences.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31885 Apr 5, 2013
There are more than 100 years of experimental tests on radioactivity but not one single test of climate change mitigation. This is the difference between science and pseudoscience.
ok! party people in the house!
...

do you ever question your life?
do you ever wonder why?
do you ever see in your dreams,
all the castles in the sky...

oh tell me why...
do we build castles in the sky...
oh tell me why...
are the castles way up high...
please tell me why...
do we build castles in the sky...
oh tell me why...
are the castles way up high...

...

do ever question your life?
do you ever wonder why?
do you ever see in your dreams...
all the castle in the sky...

oh tell me why...
do we build castles in the sky...
of tell me why...
are the castle way up high...
please tell me why...
do we build castles in the sky...
oh tell me why...
are the castles way up high...
Ian Van Dahl
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/ian-van-dahl/castl...
Castles In The Sky Lyrics

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31886 Apr 5, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
...EDITED...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.
If "climate change is happening and the majority of climate models show it likely the planet will catastrophically warm in the next couple of centuries...at the current rate," then who exactly are the "alarmists?"

Deniers are the problem plain and simple. They're the ones not doing the science, or distorting what HAS been done.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31887 Apr 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There are more than 100 years of experimental tests on radioactivity but not one single test of climate change mitigation. This is the difference between science and pseudoscience.
<quoted text>
A warming forum is a place for discussing warming and climate change, not constantly trying to steer the discussion into "climate change mitigation" so that you can make false claims about "fraud," a "hoax," or "pseudoscience."

This is the difference between serious discussion and trolling, Brian.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31888 Apr 5, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Stating that science is as low down guilty as political AGW deniers is throwing 'all your reasonableness' out the window.
I did not say that science "is as low down guilty". Science is just that, but how people use an interpret the data to support an agenda is a completely different story. On the one side we have deniers claiming the models are totally bunk, and on the other are alarmists claiming that the models are gospel truth. Scientifically speaking, neither is correct. A model or projections based on models are only as good as the assumptions used, but that does not render any and all models useless. The accuracy of models is proven over time as predictions are compared to real-word observations... such as with the 1992 global warming prediction made by UNFCCC scientists. As of 2011 it was clear the projected warming is correct and showed that since 1992, average global temperatures increased by .55 degrees C.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31889 Apr 5, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
If "climate change is happening and the majority of climate models show it likely the planet will catastrophically warm in the next couple of centuries...at the current rate," then who exactly are the "alarmists?"
Deniers are the problem plain and simple. They're the ones not doing the science, or distorting what HAS been done.
Both are a problem. Doomsayers threaten the credibility of the movement, and deniers attack it. Environmentalists need to stick to good science and not step over the bounds of its interpretation. That's my only point here.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31890 Apr 5, 2013
Josh is in probation ... He wants to lecture elementary stuff. But where are the darn alarmists? Show me one here.

I've never seen an alarmist who claimed here anything is the gospel truth. Read some posts before jumping joshing.

Aging improves some wines, not all. However, science improves its tools as it progresses.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31891 Apr 5, 2013
The "data" guy does not have science, it appears here .. He could be a programmer, who's not able to write papers ... but misunderstands the scientists easily.

And which science does he want to discuss? LOL.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31892 Apr 5, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
Both are a problem. Doomsayers threaten the credibility of the movement, and deniers attack it. Environmentalists need to stick to good science and not step over the bounds of its interpretation. That's my only point here.
I'm just not seeing much "doomsaying" among scientists, that's all.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31893 Apr 5, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
A warming forum is a place for discussing warming and climate change, not constantly trying to steer the discussion into "climate change mitigation" so that you can make false claims about "fraud," a "hoax," or "pseudoscience."
tha Professor has lost track of this thread, it's based on a letter to the editor of the Daily Times that chasisties government for the bad policy of climate change mitigation. I'll quote the letter here:

"Editor:
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. Bill Richardson now wants more power to go after global warming emissions from facilities in New Mexico. I doubt very seriously that state legislators will devote much time to his request since most of them believe the No. 1 priority of this session is balancing the budget.

I believe most New Mexicans also consider balancing the state budget much more important than limiting emissions that have not been proved to cause global warming. I have faith our legislators will focus on important issues instead of this ridiculous waste of time and money.

On a related note I applaud Sen. Lisa Murkowski and the other U. S. senators who plan to block the EPA from following through on regulating greenhouse gas emissions. These senators realize how much damage the EPA proposal could do to our economy and how many more jobs may be lost as a result. Of course our own Sen. Tom Udall thinks this is terrible, saying "it is a misguided and political attempt to overrule the EPA's scientific finding that greenhouse gas pollution is a threat to public health and the environment."

Many people believe the EPA endangerment decision was based more on politics than science, and should be reconsidered in light of the recent news about how IPCC scientists misused data and blacklisted other scientists who disagreed with hem. But I am not surprised at Senator Udall's reaction to Senator Murkowski's proposal.
As far as I am concerned Sen. Udall is much more interested in doing what is best for the Sierra Club and other environmental groups than he is in doing what is best for his constituents. If he and other senators want to force greenhouse gas legislation on people who don't want it, as they did with health care, maybe we can add another Republican to the Senate from New Mexico in the next election.
JEFF PEACE
Kirtland"
http://www.daily-times.com/ci_14284146

Go back to page one if you think this thread has nothing to do with climate change mitigation. I thought we were passed that, but tha Professor needs a review.

.
tha Professor wrote:
This is the difference between serious discussion and trolling, Brian.
^^^If you can't keep up, you can always call your opponents names like "troll". It's not a rational response, but I understand if that's all they have.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31894 Apr 5, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
The "data" guy does not have science, it appears here .. He could be a programmer, who's not able to write papers ... but misunderstands the scientists easily.
And which science does he want to discuss? LOL.
You don't know anything about me.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31895 Apr 5, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just not seeing much "doomsaying" among scientists, that's all.
http://m.phys.org/news/2012-04-first-ever-sim...

No I wasn't saying scientists were doomsaying. I think people can adapt in ways to live sustainably with the help of current and eventual technologies.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31896 Apr 5, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know anything about me.
True.

I read what you posted.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31897 Apr 5, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
http://m.phys.org/news/2012-04-first-ever-sim...
No I wasn't saying scientists were doomsaying. I think people can adapt in ways to live sustainably with the help of current and eventual technologies.
You oversell what you post.

Your link isn't relevant.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31898 Apr 5, 2013
Something relevant? The global mean level of the oceans is one of the most important indicators of climate change. It incorporates the reactions from several different components of the climate system.

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-i...

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31899 Apr 5, 2013
By catastrophic, I mean ocean acidification, and that could threaten to collapse marine ecosystems globally. The oceans absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans each year, and the reaction with sea water produces carbonic acid. After so long as the oceans acidify, plankton will no longer be able to build their shells faster than its gone. Threatening a mass extinction of plankton would quite possibly collapse marine ecosystems worldwide.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31900 Apr 5, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
You oversell what you post.
Your link isn't relevant.
The link was an accident.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31901 Apr 5, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Something relevant? The global mean level of the oceans is one of the most important indicators of climate change. It incorporates the reactions from several different components of the climate system.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-i...
Thanks for the link. Observational data helps ensure the accuracy of a model and improves it over time. Having calculated the slope and progressed the equation, sophisticated models such as this help reduce the margins of error, but it also highlights my previous point. Had the model not accounted for regional differences, then it would skew the slope showing sea-level rise. There is much to account for.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31902 Apr 5, 2013
Experimental tests verify a model accurately reflects reality. When an airplane manufacturer models a new wing design, they use computer models, then scale wind tunnel models and finally flight tests. That's solid science.

No climate model has been verified by atmospheric tests; that's how you can know man made global warming alarmism is pseudoscience and climate change mitigation is a hoax.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31903 Apr 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Experimental tests verify a model accurately reflects reality. When an airplane manufacturer models a new wing design, they use computer models, then scale wind tunnel models and finally flight tests. That's solid science.
No climate model has been verified by atmospheric tests; that's how you can know man made global warming alarmism is pseudoscience and climate change mitigation is a hoax.
Okay, you say something I agree with, and then something I completely disagree with. The predictions models supply are useful data, within constraint.

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.

US Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 13 min District 1 216,727
News The Latest: Trump says canceling Chicago rally ... 2 hr Wondering 1,727
News Former astronaut scoffs at global warming (Feb '09) 2 hr Earthling-1 2,396
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 4 hr Cordwainer Trout 5
News Trump's failed Baja condo resort left buyers fe... 4 hr Chilli J 12
News Sen. Elizabeth Warren Being Vetted for Hillary ... 4 hr Cordwainer Trout 9
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 4 hr Dumbass for God 9,767
More from around the web