Reasons we don't like the Kool Aid on global warming

[Midnight Marauder]

What is the Evidence for Global Warming

Please read things other than right wing blog sites if you wish to understand science.

It is YOU who do not understand science. You can post your biased propaganda links all you wish, the facts still do not change.

You keep ignoring this, but I'll ask one more time. Can you refute any of the below?

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

 

[Truthmatters]

Your so stupid you cant see that I already debunked that stupid ass hate filled rant.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Your so stupid you cant see that I already debunked that stupid ass hate filled rant.

First off, it wasn't a rant. Secondly, you never debunked it. All you have done is ignore it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your so stupid you cant see that I already debunked that stupid ass hate filled rant.

You can pretty up with all the charts and graphs you want but there's no real science behind any of it.

Global Warming In: Global Warming Out

 

[Truthmatters]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

this is an idiotic rant.

You stole it from some right wing blog and dont even realize its a phoney paid for mishmash.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

this is an idiotic rant.

You stole it from some right wing blog and dont even realize its a phoney paid for mishmash.

Our Man Made Global Warming computer models tell us that Global Warming is man made...what a shocker!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

this is an idiotic rant.

You stole it from some right wing blog and dont even realize its a phoney paid for mishmash.

It wasn't stolen from anywhere. It was quoted FROM THIS THREAD.

Just admit you cannot refute any of it, and move on.

 

[Oddball]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

this is an idiotic rant.

You stole it from some right wing blog and dont even realize its a phoney paid for mishmash.

I stole it from nowhere.

I've been posting those centuries-old traditionally accepted acid tests for "settled science" for years now, and have yet to have anyone --I mean anyone-- come back and describe how globalclimatecoolerwarmering junk science passes any one of, let alone all of, those benchmarks.

Feel free to take a stab at it, Poindexter.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Here is the assement of climate models for you.

Read or dont read.

I dont expect you to read it anyway.

The overwhelming majority of related science fields agree man effects the global system with byproducts of mans activities and you will still deny its science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Here is the assement of climate models for you.

Read or dont read.

I dont expect you to read it anyway.

The overwhelming majority of related science fields agree man effects the global system with byproducts of mans activities and you will still deny its science.

That's not real science, Dear. That's like saying a majority of people who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old really believe the Earth really is only 6,000 years old

 

[Midnight Marauder]

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Here is the assement of climate models for you.

Read or dont read.

I dont expect you to read it anyway.

The overwhelming majority of related science fields agree man effects the global system with byproducts of mans activities and you will still deny its science.

You're exactly like any other religious fundie, thumping their bible while understanding NONE of it yourself.

 

[Oddball]

The same IPCC that has reviewed and used fewer than 1,000 scientific papers on the subject, out of the over 11,000 submitted, to draw its conclusions?

Seriously?

 

[Truthmatters]

NO its an assesment of climate model accuracy you taintwallow.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

NO its an assesment of climate model accuracy you taintwallow.

It is SUBJECTIVE, stupid!

SCIENCE is OBJECTIVE!

You're really working very hard to defend your cult here. Can't damn you for your zealotry!

 

[Truthmatters]

There you guys go calling scientists evil again because they dont agree with your sceince for money assholes.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

There you guys go calling scientists evil again because they dont agree with your sceince for money assholes.

No one's called anyone evil.

And I suppose the scientists you believe in take NO money from anyone, right?

 

[code1211]

So now science is a cult?

A fact free zone called the conservative mind

For the last last several hundred thousand years, CO2 has always risen and fallen as a result of changing temperature. As far as I can tell, there have been 3 times in about 2 billion years when CO2 rose before temperature rose.

There may or may not have been a causal connection in these examples and the timing puts the occurrances together at the range into the past of several milion years when there was no polar icing and the continents were far removed from their current positions.

Sketchy at best.

CO2 has always been at its highest when Ice ages begin and at its lowest when warming begins after Ice Ages. Certainly no climate causation in this. TSI, on the other hand, mirrored pretty accurately the rise and fall of temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age. In 1978 when NASA launched satelites to track this, the correlation ended.

Funding for space flight decreased and funding for Climate research conducted by NASA increased. Now THERE'S a correlation.

Interestingly, both Chris and Rocks began pointing out that the warmest decade ever was warm despite the lowest TSI on record. Guess what? Warming ended during that decade and some cooling occurred.

The rise of CO2 continued unabated. CO2 went up. TSI went down. Temperature went down. Interesting bit of correlation there, yes? I wonder which of the causes just doesn't belong.

 

[code1211]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

this is an idiotic rant.

You stole it from some right wing blog and dont even realize its a phoney paid for mishmash.

Here's some real science. It is from Dr. James Hansen of NASA. It is the prediction that he made before Congress in 1988. It also shows the actual performance of temperature across the period of the prediction.

Dr. Hansen made three predictions and based them on three scenarios of decreased CO2, stable CO2 and increased CO2.

All of his projections were higher than the actual perfromance of the climate.

So much for predictability.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hansen20.gif
Thoughts on Hansen et al 1988 « Climate Audit

 

[Maple]

First, I don't think putting large amounts of dirt in the air is a good thing.
Second, most of my working life I have commuted on foot, by bike, or by bus. Only rarely have I commuted by car. I recycle. etc etc.

It always bugs me when I am stuck behind an SUV with green bumper stickers on it when I ride my bike. And it happens a lot.

Anyway, on Global Warming..

• The earth's temperature is varialbe. From one year to the next, one decade to the next from one century to the next
• Most of what makes the temperature variable is outside of our understanding, and what we do know about is mostly outside of our control
• There has always been a huge amount of bogus in the global warming numbers.
• A lot of the remediation (trees etc) might actually make for more carbon in the atmosphere rather than less
• The carbon footprint numbers seem made up, as lots of poorer areas are poor because of mismangment. cooking over open fires is a lot more poluting than cooking with gas or electric, even when the electric is produced by coal fired boilers
• the worst poluters always get exemptions, as witness the Copenhagen conference where everyone with authority had to have a stretch limo and an enterauge of 50
• Those promoting it don't really seem to care that much about the environment, as much as they care about having their hands on our throats

Feel free to ad more

And then there is this------------------

Climate change hits Mars - Times Online

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

I wonder what the martians are going to do to combat their global warming problem maybe we should send Al Gore on a mission to help them out with this problem. LOLOLOLOLOLOLO

 

[Truthmatters]

You forgot the next couple of paragraphs



The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.

Fenton’s team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.

When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.