Global warming 'dips this year'

[polksalet]

You think that I "follow this belief with a religious fervor"?

 

It definitely doesn't come from science. What would you call it?

[detlef]

It definitely doesn't come from science. What would you call it?

So, let me get this straight. Both sides of the argument have data that supports their belief which makes it pretty much like nearly every argument out there. Only, for some reason those who believe the data that supports Global Warming are just driven by religious fervor and those who believe the data that denies are stalwarts of the scientific method?

 

Honestly, the fact that you guys bring this crap up more often than we do (and, yes, you do) would sort of imply the opposite.

 

Despite the fact that I've made my stance 100% clear dozens of times, let me do it again so you dimwits can know precisely what you're arguing against.

 

I am not a scientist, so I do not have a thorough enough understanding of the data to either confirm or deny these theories. However, I don't find the sacrifices being asked to curb what may be the man made causes of global warming too much to ask. Further, I think that the consequences of reducing carbon emissions are likely much less than the consequences of ignoring the issue and having it turn out to be true.

 

Like I said earlier in this thread and you guys have conveniently avoided. In the last 8 years our government have driven us into record debt and started a major war based on either incomplete or downright faulty data. You guys didn't say boo. The deficit was sold to us with the promise of new jobs and we never even got a sniff of the amount it was supposed to generate. With Iraq, they just kept changing the reasons of why we were there.

 

Now somebody just wants everyone to stop consuming so much energy and you're being dragged kicking and screaming, unwilling to budge until every expert alive is on board with the theory that not doing so means certain doom?

 

Glad to see you value Air Conditioning more than human lives or fiscal sanity.

[AtomicCEO]

It definitely doesn't come from science.

 

I disagree.

[McBoog]

This was on another board where Climal Warnging is discussed (more intelligently and less rudely than here, independent of position).

 

There IS an Al Gore correlation to Global Warming in Australia (as noted by Tim Blair in The Bulletin).

 

Every time Gore goes out and gives a speech on Global Warming or holds a viewing of An Inconvenient Truth (anywhere in the world), Australia suffers through near-record-low temperatures. This has been recorded since 1995.

 

Recently, when he appeared via Big-Screen at Live Earth here, we in the West recorded our FIRST EVER night below freezing!

 

GOOD ON YA, Big Al!

 

YOU KILLED MY MANGO TREE!!!

 

 

I don't care who you are, that was a funny post!

[polksalet]

I disagree.

 

Let's say you are talking to a group of five people who are all equally educated and are all far more smarter and more learned than you are. Let us say that 3 believe one way and 2 believe the other.

 

How do you go about figuring out who to believe?

[detlef]

Let's say you are talking to a group of five people who are all equally educated and are all far more smarter and more learned than you are. Let us say that 3 believe one way and 2 believe the other.

 

How do you go about figuring out who to believe?

Well, considering that's far too few close a difference between sides and thus you can't rely on any statistical reason to side with one or the other...

 

If I have to decide then, I look at the worst case scenario of following either side's logic and go with the one that I won't be kicking myself down the road for ignoring.

[AtomicCEO]

Let's say you are talking to a group of five people who are all equally educated and are all far more smarter and more learned than you are. Let us say that 3 believe one way and 2 believe the other.

 

How do you go about figuring out who to believe?

 

Have them bare-knuckle box each other?

[polksalet]

Well, considering that's far too few close a difference between sides and thus you can't rely on any statistical reason to side with one or the other...

 

If I have to decide then, I look at the worst case scenario of following either side's logic and go with the one that I won't be kicking myself down the road for ignoring.

 

So if you were in Germany in 1935 you would have gone Nazi because their warnings were more dramatic? I mean this is essentially the same thing.

[detlef]

So if you were in Germany in 1935 you would have gone Nazi because their warnings were more dramatic? I mean this is essentially the same thing.

Actually it's not but thanks for your concern.

[polksalet]

Actually it's not but thanks for your concern.

 

The nazis gave warnings based on group think the same as the global warming people do. You choose to believe those who give the dramatic warnings because of the level of danger. Then it was the Jews, now it is America.

[H8tank]

hey cook, ever hear of eugenics?

[bushwacked]

Let's say you are talking to a group of five people who are all equally educated and are all far more smarter and more learned than you are. Let us say that 3 believe one way and 2 believe the other.

 

How do you go about figuring out who to believe?

 

That isn't an accurate insinuation. While the majority consensus is not unamious, and overwhelming majority of climatologists agree that warming is mostly due to human impact.

 

 

A more truthful way to phrase your question would be.

 

"Let's say 995 kinesiologists think drinking 8 glasses of filtered water a day is beneficial for your health. But 5 kinesiologists think it cause purging of needed minerals out of your body and is actually a detriment to health.

 

How do you go about figuring out who to belive?"

[polksalet]

That isn't an accurate insinuation. While the majority consensus is not unamious, and overwhelming majority of climatologists agree that warming is mostly due to human impact.

 

 

A more truthful way to phrase your question would be.

 

"Let's say 995 kinesiologists think drinking 8 glasses of filtered water a day is beneficial for your health. But 5 kinesiologists think it cause purging of needed minerals out of your body and is actually a detriment to health.

 

How do you go about figuring out who to belive?"

 

I believe your numbers radically off.

[H8tank]

and overwhelming majority of climatologists agree that warming is mostly due to human impact.

 

That my kommrads, is a BOLD FACED LIE.

 

How can you even say something like that with a straight face? See, it's BULLCRAP like that garbage people like ME who fight for simply the TRUTH have to deal with.

[bushwacked]

Sigh

 

 

 

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

 

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

 

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

 

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

 

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[H8tank]

Thank you so much kommrad!!!!

 

It is SOOOOO nice for you to slurp the goo from the veiny meat sticks of the UN... do you like their findings on iraq WMD? Do you like thier workers raping little girls? Do you like them taking the cake in the oil for food scandal?

 

Perhaps you need to get some current info, or at least do a little research before coming across as a FOOL.

 

Marc Morano, a spokesperson from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority staff, says the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is scaling back on its previous dire predictions of catastrophic climate change.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) says that with each successive report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is less cause for alarm than previously thought. Morano points out that in the recent 2007 report, man's alleged impact on "global warming" was scaled back by 25 percent while ocean-level rise was also reduced.

 

According to Morano, this is the 13th year that rapid warming has been predicted and advertised in the media by Al Gore and the U.N., but it has failed to occur. "So at some point, they're getting worried -- and now you have record winter in the Northern Hemisphere and record winter in the Southern Hemisphere, [as well as] global cooling to the extent from 2007 to 2008 that was rather significant and surprised a lot of scientists," Morano contends.

 

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=74767

 

Dr Green, the author of a peer-reviewed paper auditing the forecasting methods of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), opposed the bill because he claimed it was based on "invalid climate forecasts".

 

He told Parliament's finance select committee that authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report provided sufficient information to observe predic tions violated 72 of 89 accepted principles of forecasting. There was insufficient information to judge how closely a further 51 principles had been followed.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4472519a7693.html

 

So, go ahead and latch onto the sack of the UN... hey by the way, how is kosovo doing?

[H8tank]

A long time ago, some guy said, "Seek and ye shall find." When an organization has "climate change" in its title, one cannot be surprised when they find climate change.

 

 

wow bushwhackoff.... you are easily led, like a sheep to the grain bin, thighs spread, awaiting your master.

[dmarc117]

remarkable

[zmanzzzz]

the last 12 times Global Warming has come up as a topic in this forum, it has been by H8, McBoog, or Polksalet.

 

what about mine?

[bushwacked]

 

wow bushwhackoff.... you are easily led, like a sheep to the grain bin, thighs spread, awaiting your master.

 

 

There is no reason to continue your over dramatized religious like fervor and resort to name calling because I just completely pwned you.

 

Of course forecasting and modeling results will be altered with the the addition of new empirical data.

 

Not one of your quotes above said anything specific about the overwhelming scientific consensus: Anthropogenic activities effect global warming.

Edited April 9, 2008 by bushwacked

[H8tank]

You used a UN group, do you trust the UN?

 

Everything they have stated as fact has been proven false, can you not see that? Are you really this dense to new information????

[bushwacked]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=74767

 

 

AFN is a Christian news service - with more than 1200 broadcast, print and online affiliates in 45 states and 11 foreign countries - that exists to present the day's stories from a biblical perspective. We not only feature the latest breaking stories from across the United States and around the world, but also news of the challenges facing Christians in today's society.

 

 

 

At OneNewsNow.com, you will get your news from reporters you can trust to give the latest news without the liberal bias that characterizes so much of the "mainstream" media.

 

[H8tank]

Marc Morano, a spokesperson from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

[bushwacked]

I'm starting to get embarrassed for you H8. Your willingness to believe right wing and religious propaganda then equate it to the opinion of all major scientific bodies in the US and the IPCC is rather unfathomable. It's not that tough to find a legitimate dissenting scientific opinion from the minority.

 

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine.

 

"As a reporter for the conservative Cybercast News Service from 2001 until earlier [in 2006], Morano peppered his climate reporting with skeptics' views that have surfaced as themes in [James] Inhofe's recent press attacks. Earlier this year, for example, Morano wrote about NASA scientist James Hansen's contributions to the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.). ...

 

"Morano, who worked as a producer in the mid-90s for radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, was also among the first reporters to write about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign scrutinizing Kerry's Vietnam War record. And earlier this year, Morano penned an article questioning the Purple Heart medals of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of Bush's Iraq policy."

Edited April 9, 2008 by bushwacked

[H8tank]

lol, regardless the facts, destroy the messenger? How about the fact your previous boss raped puppies?