What if the climate meme was in the other direction?

[CrusaderFrank]

try to read this slowly so you can understand it.

The scientists in the world have reviewed the differing positions on this issue and have OVERWHELMINGLY put themselves in the camp of GW.


You little tidbits from paid scientists mean nothing compared to that cold hard fact.

That's not how science works, Fearless. You're thinking of how people pick the next American Idol

 

[Truthmatters]

So you know more about GW than the vast majority of the worlds sceintists huh?

 

[smokin_kat]

if warming and more plentiful CO2 was considered a good thing instead of the present fad of thinking it is bad what sort of media stories would we see?

-more cultivatable land leads to record food crops.

-warming has led to historical lows in hurricanes

-cheap energy leds to improved conditions everywhere but especially the third world

I could go on but my point is that almost all the evidence is equivical and can be spun in any direction. it just depends on who is telling the story.

You're right, I agree with your post.
You might see the sort of thing that was seen in the late 1970's when the media and meteorologists where hyping the coming ice age.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you know more about GW than the vast majority of the worlds sceintists huh?

How are you doing on finding the laboratory experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 does all the stuff you clam it does?

 

[skookerasbil]

w0w..........these guys are knocking me out with the links!!!

And why might that be????

Because there are no links that show the science matters!!!






But there are SCORES of these................

http://www.good.is/post/cap-and-trade-is-dead-now-what/



I spit on these assholes every day!!!!

 

[IanC]

try to read this slowly so you can understand it.

The scientists in the world have reviewed the differing positions on this issue and have OVERWHELMINGLY put themselves in the camp of GW.


You little tidbits from paid scientists mean nothing compared to that cold hard fact.

most scientists just concern themselves with their own areas. they dont want to rock the boat or comprimise their funding. that is the reason why public skeptics are usually either retirement age or in a different field. many of the actual climate scientists pissed that the spin doctors have given new meanings to their research that are not supported by the evidence. it is hard to publically disavow the research goals that support your life and lifestyle. but you are right that the majority have come down on the side of global warming. there has been warming. and CO2 has contributed to that, whether it is 0.5%, 5%, 50% or 100% is another question. it is easy to answer yes to warming and man made involvement but it is much harder to say how much is due to man and what the results will be.

 

[Truthmatters]

So only the ones who you like matter huh?

This is a perfect example of how the right denies facts

 

[skookerasbil]

So only the ones who you like matter huh?

This is a perfect example of how the right denies facts

s0n........a tree stump is less naive than you

 

[IanC]

So only the ones who you like matter huh?

This is a perfect example of how the right denies facts

actually my politics are liberal but my reasons for being that way arent based on slavish adherence to political correctness or believe in social fairytales.

TM- I would be more convinced in AGW if they would stop defending obvious untruths. making the MWP and LIA disappear by way of the Hockey Stick, and then trying to support it by replicating the same mistakes simply squandered any credence stored in the bank. ocean temps and sea level rise over the technologically improved last 8 years shows at best a plateau. yet the strident calls of doom keep booming. real science would say, "hey, things are not how we expected them to be. we need to gather more data and we'll get back to you when we know more".

 

[edthecynic]

denying what the prevailing scientific belief merely to further your historically failed ideas is nothing but partisanship.

Accepted and consensus climate science of the day told us we should go and plow up the great arid plains, this would make it rain. "Rain follows the Plow" it was called. This "science" like so much of what we see today, had a political agenda, at the time that agenda was called "manifest destiny" and of course the gullible public fell for it hook, line and sinker.

They moved west, plowed up the plains, but gee, the rain didn't come! The climate stayed the same as it had been for centuries and still is!

Rain Follows the Plow - Wikipedia

Your blind faith in science, no matter what it tells you, replaces religion in your life. Your total lack of any skepticism shows you're just a kool-aid drinking tool.

From your link:

God speed the plow.... By this wonderful provision, which is only man's mastery over nature, the clouds are dispensing copious rains ... [the plow] is the instrument which separates civilization from savagery; and converts a desert into a farm or garden.... To be more concise, Rain follows the plow

Only a scientifically ignorant CON$ervative would believe a scientific principle would begin with "God."

 

[edthecynic]

Do you think the vast majority of scientists have not done just that?


They have looked at it and are trained in the fields and have determined the best evidence lies in the man made global warming camp.


You just refuse the vast majority of them have any brains.

Phil Jones can't find Global Warming. Remember him?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

You wouldn't be a CON$ervative if you couldn't dishonestly edit that quote.

Again, the fact that you have to edit that quote to deliberately mislead proves that deniers know they have nothing to support their bullshit and must attempt to discredit the truth.
Thank you for your dishonesty.

 

[edthecynic]

if warming and more plentiful CO2 was considered a good thing instead of the present fad of thinking it is bad what sort of media stories would we see?

-more cultivatable land leads to record food crops.

-warming has led to historical lows in hurricanes

-cheap energy leds to improved conditions everywhere but especially the third world

I could go on but my point is that almost all the evidence is equivical and can be spun in any direction. it just depends on who is telling the story.

You're right, I agree with your post.
You might see the sort of thing that was seen in the late 1970's when the media and meteorologists where hyping the coming ice age.

The only people hyping a coming ice age in the 70s were the same minority of deniers hyping global cooling today.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you think the vast majority of scientists have not done just that?


They have looked at it and are trained in the fields and have determined the best evidence lies in the man made global warming camp.


You just refuse the vast majority of them have any brains.

Phil Jones can't find Global Warming. Remember him?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

You wouldn't be a CON$ervative if you couldn't dishonestly edit that quote.

Again, the fact that you have to edit that quote to deliberately mislead proves that deniers know they have nothing to support their bullshit and must attempt to discredit the truth.
Thank you for your dishonesty.

Phil Jones categorically states there that since 1995 there is no statistically significant global warming. Just deal with it.

 

[edthecynic]

Phil Jones can't find Global Warming. Remember him?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

You wouldn't be a CON$ervative if you couldn't dishonestly edit that quote.

Again, the fact that you have to edit that quote to deliberately mislead proves that deniers know they have nothing to support their bullshit and must attempt to discredit the truth.
Thank you for your dishonesty.

Phil Jones categorically states there that since 1995 there is no statistically significant global warming. Just deal with it.

Actually, he categorically stated that there was a +.12C warming per decade for the period 1995 to 2009 but the PERIOD OF TIME was not long enough to be statistically-significant, which is why you never post the WHOLE quote.
Again thank you for your dishonesty, as it discredits all deniers.

 

[IanC]

if warming and more plentiful CO2 was considered a good thing instead of the present fad of thinking it is bad what sort of media stories would we see?

-more cultivatable land leads to record food crops.

-warming has led to historical lows in hurricanes

-cheap energy leds to improved conditions everywhere but especially the third world

I could go on but my point is that almost all the evidence is equivical and can be spun in any direction. it just depends on who is telling the story.

You're right, I agree with your post.
You might see the sort of thing that was seen in the late 1970's when the media and meteorologists where hyping the coming ice age.

The only people hyping a coming ice age in the 70s were the same minority of deniers hyping global cooling today.

Stephen Schneider is the only person that I know who milked both the coming ice age scare and the AGW scare for personal fame. perhaps if he had lived longer he would have flipflopped back to coming ice age doom again.

 

[IanC]

You wouldn't be a CON$ervative if you couldn't dishonestly edit that quote.

Again, the fact that you have to edit that quote to deliberately mislead proves that deniers know they have nothing to support their bullshit and must attempt to discredit the truth.
Thank you for your dishonesty.

Phil Jones categorically states there that since 1995 there is no statistically significant global warming. Just deal with it.

Actually, he categorically stated that there was a +.12C warming per decade for the period 1995 to 2009 but the PERIOD OF TIME was not long enough to be statistically-significant, which is why you never post the WHOLE quote.
Again thank you for your dishonesty, as it discredits all deniers.

to some extent I agree with you. I would have more sympathy if you would admit there was not statistically significant warming since 1995 instead of claiming it doesnt matter. science has rules that cant be tossed aside just because you find them inconvenient.

 

[RollingThunder]

Phil Jones categorically states there that since 1995 there is no statistically significant global warming. Just deal with it.

Actually, he categorically stated that there was a +.12C warming per decade for the period 1995 to 2009 but the PERIOD OF TIME was not long enough to be statistically-significant, which is why you never post the WHOLE quote.
Again thank you for your dishonesty, as it discredits all deniers.

to some extent I agree with you. I would have more sympathy if you would admit there was not statistically significant warming since 1995 instead of claiming it doesnt matter. science has rules that cant be tossed aside just because you find them inconvenient.

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.​

The fact that the denier cult dimwits want to ignore is that if Phil Jones is saying that 15 years is too short a time period for determining if the trend is statistically significant (using the arbitrary 5% level) then what do you find if you look at a longer period of time. Figuring from 1960 to the present, for example, you would see that the warming trend over this period is highly statistically significant (<0.0001%). From 1900 to present the significance is even greater. The trend is very real and the world is indeed warming rapidly.

For a complete debunking of this idiotic denier cult myth, watch this video.

'Global Warming Has Stopped'


***

 

[Skull Pilot]

where has anyone told you that is what GW will produce?

The word "warming" tells me that.

If it's going to be warmer then by definition winters will be milder and the growing season will be longer.

 

[code1211]

No the prevailing scientific postion on ANYTHING is our best knowledge and you refusse our best knowledge to hang onto your historically failed political ideas.



Denying science is a really stupid way to run anything let alone the most powerful country in the world.

And exactly what is the prevailing scientific opinion on this. Please explain in detail and justify any conclusions.

Also, be mindful that "If you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer. Superstition." -Stevie Wonder

 

[code1211]

Why do you people feel so proud of denying our best sceintific knowledge?

Ask Dr. James Hansen.