Global Warming

[SpidermanTuba]

thanks-i'm familiar with science.

are acronyms a science now?

no, and neither is google
define:wrt - Google Search

thanks again, but i have no desire to google random groups of letters.

i'm glad you enjoy it, though.

Its not a random group. Its a sequence of three letters you asked the meaning of.

 

[del]

no, and neither is google
define:wrt - Google Search

thanks again, but i have no desire to google random groups of letters.

i'm glad you enjoy it, though.

Its not a random group. Its a sequence of three letters you asked the meaning of.

and you kindly supplied it, so why would i need to google it?

would it help if i type slower?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

thanks again, but i have no desire to google random groups of letters.

i'm glad you enjoy it, though.

Its not a random group. Its a sequence of three letters you asked the meaning of.

and you kindly supplied it, so why would i need to google it?

would it help if i type slower?

it would help us all if you typed slower. Try one character per year.

 

[del]

Its not a random group. Its a sequence of three letters you asked the meaning of.

and you kindly supplied it, so why would i need to google it?

would it help if i type slower?

it would help us all if you typed slower. Try one character per year.

i'm sorry, mr gump, but i'm unable to comply with your request at this time wrt typing.

 

[saveliberty]

Been in five states this last week. Nobody said it was warm. Most were saying it was way colder than normal. Not a soul brought up polar bears as a victim of warming. Global warming was considered a joke by most. A bad joke.

 

[saveliberty]

no, and neither is google
define:wrt - Google Search

thanks again, but i have no desire to google random groups of letters.

i'm glad you enjoy it, though.

Its not a random group. Its a sequence of three letters you asked the meaning of.

Those who leave interpretation of abbreviations and alphabet soup to the reader are basically spelling challenged lazy folks who should leave communicating to those with word skills.

 

[keee keee]

Frank, do you have any idea how real science is done? Do you think that Geologist construct a whole river delta system to see if that matches the rocks they see that are the results of such systems? No, the observe the present delta systems and extrapolate the results of the system being buried, heated, and hardened.

There are many areas of science that deal with natural phenomona on a scale too vast to do actual lab type experiments. The insistance that you and others have that it is not real science to use what nature has provided us with as the experiments is either evidence of vast ignorance of how science is done, or deciet.

Global warming science is made up and fact and data are doctored.

 

[Foxfyre]

1.1 million hits

"climate change" - Google Scholar

And they've all been debunked in the past few months.


Sure.

Professor Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”


UN must investigate warming ‘bias’, says former climate chief - Times Online

do you enjoy being a useful idiot?

Where does he say that AGW has been entirely debunked?

Doctor: Well del, there's good news! It would appear your cancer isn't as serious as we thought it was.
del: That means it doesn't exist, I can just ignore it, and there will be no problems, right?

Nobody has said AGW is entirely debunked. Nobody with half a brain believes thay humans are incapable of altering their immediate environment on even a fairly large scale. Deforestation of large tracks of rain forest, for instance, has significantly changed the climate environment in the area of the rain forests. The climate environment over large cities is quite different than it was before hundreds of square miles were paved over and homes, markets, and industrial complexes, all emitting heat, were installed on land that was once had only feral vegetation or was planted with crops.

What is being debunked, piece by piece, are claims of some, including some scientists, who have pointed to certain sacred cows as probably conclusive evidence of manmade global warming. We are learning that many of those claims don't hold up under additional scrutiny. Check back over this thread for numerous credible sources to back that up.

What is being debunked are scientific claims that were unintentionally or intentionally falsified for political or personal economic purposes.

What is being debunked are the claims that there is an overwhelming consensus of scientists who have verified that AGW is happening. There isn't.

What is being debunked, piece by piece, are the claims of anybody, scientist or not, who claims the evidence of AGW is conclusive enough to say that it is settled science.

Certainly there is good reason to religiously study the climate, trends, probabilites, and possibilities, because it only makes sense to help humankind prepare for what is probably coming.

There is insufficient evidence at this time, however, to socialize our energy industries, give up much U.S. sovereignty to world authority and take away our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities in the name of the religion of anthropogenic global warming

And again, I wonder why you seem so desperate to believe the AGW religionists and to disbelieve those who dispute them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Been in five states this last week. Nobody said it was warm. Most were saying it was way colder than normal. Not a soul brought up polar bears as a victim of warming. Global warming was considered a joke by most. A bad joke.

Well shit, that's damning proof that AGW is wrong!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Those who leave interpretation of abbreviations and alphabet soup to the reader are basically spelling challenged lazy folks who should leave communicating to those with word skills.

So all physicists are lazy?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Frank, do you have any idea how real science is done? Do you think that Geologist construct a whole river delta system to see if that matches the rocks they see that are the results of such systems? No, the observe the present delta systems and extrapolate the results of the system being buried, heated, and hardened.

There are many areas of science that deal with natural phenomona on a scale too vast to do actual lab type experiments. The insistance that you and others have that it is not real science to use what nature has provided us with as the experiments is either evidence of vast ignorance of how science is done, or deciet.

Global warming science is made up and fact and data are doctored.

Right. Its a worldwide 100+ year old conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, students, staff, and politicians. Now go put your tinfoil hat on.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Nobody has said AGW is entirely debunked. Nobody with half a brain believes thay humans are incapable of altering their immediate environment on even a fairly large scale. Deforestation of large tracks of rain forest, for instance, has significantly changed the climate environment in the area of the rain forests.

In the area of the rain forests? REALLY? So what you're telling me is that rain forests are air tight isolated systems, and if we chop down all the trees in South America, its only the South Americans that have to worry about excess CO2 and not enough oxygen?

What is being debunked, piece by piece, are claims of some, including some scientists, who have pointed to certain sacred cows as probably conclusive evidence of manmade global warming.

Please define "sacred cow" in scientific terms.

We are learning that many of those claims don't hold up under additional scrutiny. Check back over this thread for numerous credible sources to back that up.

I did. There isn't a single one.

What is being debunked are the claims that there is an overwhelming consensus of scientists who have verified that AGW is happening. There isn't.

No one ever claimed the overwhelming majority of scientists had verified AGW. Verification of other people's theories isn't just something you do in an afternoon, it takes much time and labor, careers in fact.

What is being debunked, piece by piece, are the claims of anybody, scientist or not, who claims the evidence of AGW is conclusive enough to say that it is settled science.

I have yet to see an actual scientist even make that claim.

There is insufficient evidence at this time

Is that based on your expert opinion or your gut feeling?

And again, I wonder why you seem so desperate to believe the AGW religionists

I can see you aren't interested at all in any sort of scientific debate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody has said AGW is entirely debunked. Nobody with half a brain believes thay humans are incapable of altering their immediate environment on even a fairly large scale. Deforestation of large tracks of rain forest, for instance, has significantly changed the climate environment in the area of the rain forests.

In the area of the rain forests? REALLY? So what you're telling me is that rain forests are air tight isolated systems, and if we chop down all the trees in South America, its only the South Americans that have to worry about excess CO2 and not enough oxygen?

No Sweetie. I said nothing like that. You might want to see what you can do about your reading comprehension problem.

What is being debunked, piece by piece, are claims of some, including some scientists, who have pointed to certain sacred cows as probably conclusive evidence of manmade global warming.

Please define "sacred cow" in scientific terms.

I did. There isn't a single one.

No one ever claimed the overwhelming majority of scientists had verified AGW. Verification of other people's theories isn't just something you do in an afternoon, it takes much time and labor, careers in fact.

I have yet to see an actual scientist even make that claim.

Again you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Have you had your eyes checked lately? You seem to be seeing words that aren't there.

As for those sacred cows, they have been recounted again and again in this thread. Look back over the preceding pages for the posts discussing the polar bears and vanishing Himalayan glaciers and such as that. You know those issues that the AGW religionists have quoted from the IPPC reports used as the most compelling reasons to go ahead with draconian measures to combat global warming.

There is insufficient evidence at this time

Is that based on your expert opinion or your gut feeling?

Nope. Based on the stuff already posted. You really ought to take some time to read some of that. It is your thread after all.

And again, I wonder why you seem so desperate to believe the AGW religionists

I can see you aren't interested at all in any sort of scientific debate.

Really? I thought debating is what I have been doing for some time on this thread. Will you answer the question? Why do you believe the AGW religionists instead of the skeptics? What basis did you use to decide one side had it right and the other side didn't? I have provided my basis for why I think the skeptics to be more right than the religionists.

Do you have the balls to answer the question?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, do you have any idea how real science is done? Do you think that Geologist construct a whole river delta system to see if that matches the rocks they see that are the results of such systems? No, the observe the present delta systems and extrapolate the results of the system being buried, heated, and hardened.

There are many areas of science that deal with natural phenomona on a scale too vast to do actual lab type experiments. The insistance that you and others have that it is not real science to use what nature has provided us with as the experiments is either evidence of vast ignorance of how science is done, or deciet.

We can unravel the most basic elementary particles, but it's way too hard to get 2 side by side fish tanks...hmmmkay

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Really? I thought debating is what I have been doing for some time on this thread.

Not really. You've simply defined science you don't like as a "religion". No need for you to debate then.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

We can unravel the most basic elementary particles, but it's way too hard to get 2 side by side fish tanks...hmmmkay

The fact you think the Earth can reasonably be approximated as a fish tank is extremely amusing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really? I thought debating is what I have been doing for some time on this thread.

Not really. You've simply defined science you don't like as a "religion". No need for you to debate then.

I have been debating them sweetie pie. You have refused to look at the debated points or the sources supporting them.

Again, why do you believe the AGW proponents and disbelieve those who have now put out reams of scientific data disputing many or most of the science promoted by the AGW proponents?

For instance, why do you believe the IPPC Summary for Policymakers and not the Independent Summary? The IPPC Summary is not written by scientists. The Independent Summary is.

This is the third time I've asked the question now.

Will you answer it?

 

[saveliberty]

Frank, do you have any idea how real science is done? Do you think that Geologist construct a whole river delta system to see if that matches the rocks they see that are the results of such systems? No, the observe the present delta systems and extrapolate the results of the system being buried, heated, and hardened.

There are many areas of science that deal with natural phenomona on a scale too vast to do actual lab type experiments. The insistance that you and others have that it is not real science to use what nature has provided us with as the experiments is either evidence of vast ignorance of how science is done, or deciet.

Global warming science is made up and fact and data are doctored.

Right. Its a worldwide 100+ year old conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, students, staff, and politicians. Now go put your tinfoil hat on.

Climate science should be done on a 10,000 year or longer time frame. Your loons are trying to create a crisis in the short term to gain funding. They have all but admitted they have cooked the data and the results must then be viewed as suspect. A true scientist would admit that. I refer to it as a religion, because it requires faith where no supporting evidence is present. It saves time. I apologize to actual religions for using them as an example in this case. Early science has often been proven incorrect in their conclusions. Usually it was the result of a flawed model, measuring or lack of understanding of how the system actually works. I suspect climate change will be one of these.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I have been debating them sweetie pie. You have refused to look at the debated points or the sources supporting them.

You are debating but you aren't in the same debate as I am. I am debating the validity of a scientific theory. You, on the other hand, are debating the validity of a construct you have invented in your head solely for the purpose of you having an easy debate - namely, "global warming religion".

Again, why do you believe the AGW proponents and disbelieve those who have now put out reams of scientific data disputing many or most of the science promoted by the AGW proponents?

There isn't reams of scientific data disputing most of AGW. You are confusing articles written by journalists, bloggers, economists, and politicians about science with the actual science. Do you have a link to a peer reviewed, scientific paper, written by scientists, reviewed by scientists, and published in a scientific journal debunking most points of AGW? No.

For instance, why do you believe the IPPC Summary for Policymakers and not the Independent Summary?

Are you serious? The Fraser Institute is a libertarian economic think tank. I'm not interested in what economic think tanks have to say about any physical science. Not only that but their paper is full of crap. Independent Summary for Policymakers - SourceWatch
Not subjected to rigorous peer review either. All they did was hand out a multiple choice survey to a few scientists, most of whom were not even experts in the field. That's not how its done guys, sorry.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Your loons are trying to create a crisis in the short term to gain funding.

Sorry but the overwhelming majority of fossil fuel emissions are not due to the activities of climate scientists.

They have all but admitted they have cooked the data

There has been no data cooking. You are confusing the things that right wing bloggers tell you is true with actual truth.