Where's Global Warming

[KittenKoder]

The nic is FactFinder.

Only those oblivious to facts would consider it overreaching. There are hundreds if not thousands of more credible articles that demonstrate that the science is unsettled. Certainly no where to the point worthy of making life changing decisions.

That being said. I support alternative energy sources. Just not because of climate change. Being in the middle of a snowstorm and colder than average temperatures I would welcome a bit of warming.

Post them, fellow!

*eye roll* This lame ass excuse again?

FactFinder, while your many links are great and filled with less biased facts than the environuts post, the environuts will never read them just because they don't fit into their little scam and don't support wasting money in their little corporations.

 

[FactFinder]

just because they don't fit into their little scam

Kitten I think rather it would upset their euphoric denial.

The simple fact is>>>THE SCIENCE IS UNSETTLED

 

[FactFinder]

The enviro scammers claim that 2007 was one of the warmest. They had to claim this. The faulty IPCC models predicted it. Yet here is the snow and icestorms of 2007 in Bogota, Columbia which sits on the equator.

Bogota on Ice (Poorbuthappy in Colombia!)

 

[jillian]

just because they don't fit into their little scam

Kitten I think rather it would upset their euphoric denial.

The simple fact is>>>THE SCIENCE IS UNSETTLED

er... no, it's not.

the reason the oil companies paid for fake science is to make it *seem* like it's unsettled.

 

[FactFinder]

Darlin,
If you were reading the thread you would find there are many scientists not connected with oil companies who are concerned about the IPCC scam.

 

[Meister]

Those who must demonize others have not much rocks in their pants.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

I see that rockhead has started the name calling, and the bogus site tirade. This is his method of operation, FactFinder.

 

[KittenKoder]

Alright ... now for a bit of irony. I myself don't give a fuck what happens to humanity, but I love nature. In case you miss the irony in this, go back to my posts in this and other envirnut threads.

 

[FactFinder]

I see that rockhead has started the name calling, and the bogus site tirade. This is his method of operation, FactFinder.

Not to worry. I am new around this board but not boards in general. Soft rocks can't throw anything at me I haven't seen.

 

[FactFinder]

Oh, did I forget to say?>>>THE SCIENCE IS UNSETTLED

 

[Ravi]

Oh, did I forget to say?>>>THE SCIENCE IS UNSETTLED

As you seem to be.

 

[FactFinder]

You are right. Some of us are sick and tired of the crap and

WE WILL NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!​

 

[Ravi]

You are right. Some of us are sick and tired of the crap and

WE WILL NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!​

I pretty well debunked Kitten's entire premise in my first post on this thread...it was ignored. And you're sick and tired of the crap?

 

[KittenKoder]

You are right. Some of us are sick and tired of the crap and

WE WILL NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!​

I pretty well debunked Kitten's entire premise in my first post on this thread...it was ignored. And you're sick and tired of the crap?

Turn about is fair play.

 

[FactFinder]

I pretty well debunked Kitten's entire premise in my first post on this thread...it was ignored. And you're sick and tired of the crap?

You may have USED some device to pick on Kitten but that has nothing to do with the science. Remember>>>THE SCIENCE IS UNSETTLED

 

[Old Rocks]

I pretty well debunked Kitten's entire premise in my first post on this thread...it was ignored. And you're sick and tired of the crap?

You may have USED some device to pick on Kitten but that has nothing to do with the science. Remember>>>THE SCIENCE IS UNSETTLED

I see. The physicists are wrong concerning the absorbtion spectra of CO2? The glaciers worldwide are not shrinking? The ice caps, Greenland and Antarctica, are not melting by the giga-ton yearly? The Artic is not warming? We have not already seen some outgassing of the Arctic Ocean clathrates?

Could you please post some articles from peer reviewed scientific journals that state that the amount of CO2 that we are putting into the air is not the primary factor in the changes that we are seeing?

 

[Old Rocks]

Those who must demonize others have not much rocks in their pants.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

I see that rockhead has started the name calling, and the bogus site tirade. This is his method of operation, FactFinder.

LOL! You stupes constantly use the terms enviro-nuts, kooks, ect., but cry big tears when it comes back your way.

 

[AllieBaba]

"This paper exposes flaws in the mathematical structure of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) concept. These lead to errors when emissions changes in different greenhouse gases are compared. The most fundamental problem is that the unit impulse response fuctions from which GWPs, and many of their proposed alternatives, are constructed provide an INCOMPLETE REPRESENTATION of the relationship between emissions and radiactive forcing. Additional errors occur when GWPs are used to compare finite-length emissions changes."

Smith SJ, T Wigley. 200. "Global warming potentials: 2. Accuracy." Climatic Change 44(4):459-469.
Global warming potentials: 2. Accuracy | Joint Global Change Research Institute | University of Maryland

GAO found that: (1) although GCM have improved their ability to predict
future climatic changes over the last decade, their estimates are still
limited by their incomplete or inaccurate representations of
climate-affecting processes and by insufficient computer power; (2)
scientists do not fully understand how the climate system responds to
potentially important physical, chemical, and biological processes; (3)
the lack of computer power requires scientists to use simplified
assumptions and structures that increase the uncertainty of the models'
predictions; (4) scientists are conducting research to overcome the
limitations of the computer models
Global Warming: Limitations of General Circulation Models and Costs of Modeling Efforts

Wentz's team analyzed satellite data from the past 20 years to show that as global temperatures have risen, precipitation has kept pace.

The results fly in the face of many of the world's most sophisticated climate models, which predict that worldwide rainfall will increase at a much slower rate than temperatures.

(See a map of predicted effects of global warming.)

The findings also cast doubt on the ability of climate models to accurately predict precipitation on regional scales.
Global Warming Models Underpredict Increase in Rainfall, Study Says

The earth's atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13° Celsius since 1979 according to highly accurate satellite-based atmospheric temperature measurements. By contrast, computer climate models predicted that the globe should have warmed by an easily detectable 0.4° C over the last fifteen years...Current computer climate models are incapable of coupling the oceans and atmosphere; misrepresent the role of sea ice, snow caps, localized storms, and biological systems; and fail to account accurately for the effects of clouds.

Temperature records reveal that predictive models are off by a factor of two when applied retroactively in projecting the change in global temperature for this century.

The amount of warming from 1881 to 1993 is 0.54° C. Nearly 70 percent of the warming of the entire time period — 0.37° C —occurred in the first half of the record — before the period of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases."
CEI on Global Warming: Messy Models, Decent Data, Pointless Policy

Two University of Rochester studies published in the latest issue of Geophysical Research Letters underline how uncertain and complex the understanding of global climate can be. Both reports emphasize some of the shortcomings in current weather models that scientists use to determine the effect of carbon dioxide on the Earth's average temperature. Global Warming Models Come Under Physicist's Scrutiny

 

[Old Rocks]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a advocacy group based in Washington DC. It calls itself "a non-profit, non-partisan research and advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace."[1]

Until August 2007 CEI's website CEI stated that it served "as both a think tank—creating intellectual ammunition to support free markets—and an advocacy organization—putting that ammunition to use in persuasive ways."[2]

It postures as an advocate of "sound science" in the development of public policy. However, CEI projects dispute the overwhelimng scientific evidence that human induced greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change. They have a program for "challenging government regulations", push property rights as a solution to environment problems, opposed US vehicle fuel efficiency standards and been a booster for the drug industry.

Competitive Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch

 

[Ravi]

I pretty well debunked Kitten's entire premise in my first post on this thread...it was ignored. And you're sick and tired of the crap?

You may have USED some device to pick on Kitten but that has nothing to do with the science. Remember>>>THE SCIENCE IS UNSETTLED

lol...the device was to point out that her theory was flawed. Global warming claims rainfall/snowfall amounts will shift. And her post pretty much proves they have.

 

[AllieBaba]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a advocacy group based in Washington DC. It calls itself "a non-profit, non-partisan research and advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace."[1]

Until August 2007 CEI's website CEI stated that it served "as both a think tank—creating intellectual ammunition to support free markets—and an advocacy organization—putting that ammunition to use in persuasive ways."[2]

It postures as an advocate of "sound science" in the development of public policy. However, CEI projects dispute the overwhelimng scientific evidence that human induced greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change. They have a program for "challenging government regulations", push property rights as a solution to environment problems, opposed US vehicle fuel efficiency standards and been a booster for the drug industry.

Competitive Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch

Yeah, well, NASA, National Geographic and just about every other reputable scientist agrees that the models don't work, and we're actually cooling.

There ain't much you can do with that, flat earther.

Nanu Nanu.