Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30925 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

#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.

“Headline already in use”

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.

“Headline already in use”

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.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31904 Apr 5, 2013
Prediction is descriptive science, mitigation isn't, it requires experiments to verify theory. You can't verify a prediction in advance of the event but you can verify a policy, procedure or device with experiments.

If you can find a compelling experiment for climate change mitigation, please post. I haven't found any, that's why I believe climate change mitigation is a hoax.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31905 Apr 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Prediction is descriptive science, mitigation isn't, it requires experiments to verify theory. You can't verify a prediction in advance of the event but you can verify a policy, procedure or device with experiments.
If you can find a compelling experiment for climate change mitigation, please post. I haven't found any, that's why I believe climate change mitigation is a hoax.
So you're basically saying that because we can't find mitigation efforts that work, then why even try? Based in what you just said, unless it's proven 100% before attempting mitigation, then such activities are a no-go. Right? Wrong, recognize there is a problem, take real-word measurements that define it, and then attempt mitigation, rinse and repeat.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#31906 Apr 6, 2013
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
tha Professor has lost track of this thread.....
With errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES, "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" never had a track on anything scientific.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#31907 Apr 6, 2013
josh in need of education wrote:
I did not say that science "is as low down guilty".
josh in need of education wrote:
A climate alarmist is as guilty of unscientific thought as is a complete denier.
//////////
litesong wrote:
If an AGW scientist says something that slimy toxic AGW deniers don't like, that scientist becomes an AGW alarmist to slimy toxic AGW deniers.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31908 Apr 7, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're basically saying that because we can't find mitigation efforts that work, then why even try? Based in what you just said, unless it's proven 100% before attempting mitigation, then such activities are a no-go. Right? Wrong, recognize there is a problem, take real-word measurements that define it, and then attempt mitigation, rinse and repeat.
He is saying that since mitigation is a hoax, AGW/climate change is a hoax.

He rejects all the science in his quest for an experiment. He has been shown experiments, data, observations...all kinds of evidence. But a denier can't be convinced, especially a paid one.

You want him to lose his job?

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31909 Apr 7, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
So you're basically saying that because we can't find mitigation efforts that work, then why even try?
I'd recommend holding off until they've done the experimental work; that's my plan. You may do whatever you wish, nobody is stopping you from sequestering carbon from the atmosphere and I'll thank you not taxing my energy and fuel use.

.
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
Based in what you just said, unless it's proven 100% before attempting mitigation, then such activities are a no-go. Right?
Again, you may do whatever you please. Don't you have enough research institutions and universities to do the experimental work? Don't blame me for your failures. I don't believe man made CO2 is significant to climate but if you want to prove me wrong, go ahead and show the peer reviewed experimental data.

.
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
Wrong, recognize there is a problem, take real-word measurements that define it, and then attempt mitigation, rinse and repeat.
Say no to superstition and irrationality. Don't buy a pig in a poke. If there are no experimental results to point at and say, this is what we must do and that is how it will work, wait.

We've always adapted to climate change, why switch resources to climate change mitigation now?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31910 Apr 7, 2013
Denier hoax is to treat climate science as foreign.

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Yeah 1,419,721
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Dr Guru 222,660
News Harry Reid calls mother of Benghazi victim 'cra... 10 min VN Vet 42
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 11 min asd 394
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 22 min Chimney1 205,204
News Hillary Clinton's Felonious Friends in Virginia 26 min NoToGreedyPolitic... 1
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 28 min Hungarian 101 96
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 38 min Uncle Tab 239,736
News News 14 Mins Ago Trump rebukes racism claims as... 55 min 2brosewilder 117
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr woodtick57 393,352
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 2 hr woodtick57 7,919
More from around the web