What Do YOU Believe is Actually Happening?

[eagle1462010]

Yes, settled. Settled internationally by a treaty. Settled scientifically by a worldwide consensus of scientists from every nation and culture.

The UN doesn't usurp the Constitution of the United States................We are not obligated to follow their opinions and purpose on Global Warming.

 

[jc456]

Because that is not what he's talking about. What is settled is that global warming is taking place and that human activity is providing the dominant forcing.

That of course isn't settled either. When you use .00004% of the data sample, you're not exactly arguing for something that has credibility.

Really? OK. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and represents a clear and present danger. Against that we have fruitloops like you stating that you know better that most of the scientists in the world.

Same wash, rinse and repeat. And still a poll, by your side. And still no evidence.

 

[9aces]

Because that is not what he's talking about. What is settled is that global warming is taking place and that human activity is providing the dominant forcing.

That of course isn't settled either. When you use .00004% of the data sample, you're not exactly arguing for something that has credibility.

Really? OK. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and represents a clear and present danger. Against that we have fruitloops like you stating that you know better that most of the scientists in the world.

Ask one what the cause was for the temperature increase about 150,000 years ago. Just an eye blink in the cosmic scale of global temperature history. Then when they can't answer that one, ask what the reason was for the rapid decline about 30,000 years later.

When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

And you expect that to yield an accurate projection. And you're calling ME a frootloop?

 

[Old Rocks]

Because that is not what he's talking about. What is settled is that global warming is taking place and that human activity is providing the dominant forcing.

That of course isn't settled either. When you use .00004% of the data sample, you're not exactly arguing for something that has credibility.

Really? OK. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and represents a clear and present danger. Against that we have fruitloops like you stating that you know better that most of the scientists in the world.

Ask one what the cause was for the temperature increase about 150,000 years ago. Just an eye blink in the cosmic scale of global temperature history. Then when they can't answer that one, ask what the reason was for the rapid decline about 30,000 years later.

When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

And you expect that to yield an accurate projection. And you're calling ME a frootloop?

My, you are a pretty stupid fellow, aren't you. Now, were you to take some lower division course in Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Biology, and Mathematics and get up to speed on basic science, you might not post such drivel.

 

[jc456]

Yes, settled. Settled internationally by a treaty. Settled scientifically by a worldwide consensus of scientists from every nation and culture.

What exactly is settled? Let's see the evidence. The polls say differently

 

[Dr Grump]

[QUOTE="O
When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

So? That doesn't make it wrong...

 

[Dr Grump]

What exactly is settled? Let's see the evidence. The polls say differently

The only scientists who don't believe in climate change are not climate scientists or are paid shills from conservative think tanks.

 

[9aces]

Because that is not what he's talking about. What is settled is that global warming is taking place and that human activity is providing the dominant forcing.

That of course isn't settled either. When you use .00004% of the data sample, you're not exactly arguing for something that has credibility.

Really? OK. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and represents a clear and present danger. Against that we have fruitloops like you stating that you know better that most of the scientists in the world.

Ask one what the cause was for the temperature increase about 150,000 years ago. Just an eye blink in the cosmic scale of global temperature history. Then when they can't answer that one, ask what the reason was for the rapid decline about 30,000 years later.

When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

And you expect that to yield an accurate projection. And you're calling ME a frootloop?

My, you are a pretty stupid fellow, aren't you. Now, were you to take some lower division course in Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Biology, and Mathematics and get up to speed on basic science, you might not post such drivel.

Chemical Engineering major in college, kind of ahead of you there sport. I'd advise adding Systems Analysis to the list. Helps a lot.

 

[9aces]

[QUOTE="O
When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

So? That doesn't make it wrong...

I never said their data was wrong, I said their conclusions based upon said data are impossible to quantify. It's like taking the last 3 seconds of the day, and predicting exactly how the day is going to go, 30 years exactly from today.

They can't even get right from year to year what their projections are.

 

[jc456]

Because that is not what he's talking about. What is settled is that global warming is taking place and that human activity is providing the dominant forcing.

That of course isn't settled either. When you use .00004% of the data sample, you're not exactly arguing for something that has credibility.

Really? OK. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and represents a clear and present danger. Against that we have fruitloops like you stating that you know better that most of the scientists in the world.

Ask one what the cause was for the temperature increase about 150,000 years ago. Just an eye blink in the cosmic scale of global temperature history. Then when they can't answer that one, ask what the reason was for the rapid decline about 30,000 years later.

When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

And you expect that to yield an accurate projection. And you're calling ME a frootloop?

My, you are a pretty stupid fellow, aren't you. Now, were you to take some lower division course in Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Biology, and Mathematics and get up to speed on basic science, you might not post such drivel.

And after the poll here you are with your drivel

 

[jc456]

[QUOTE="O
When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

So? That doesn't make it wrong...

Why does it make it right?

 

[Dr Grump]

[QUOTE="O
When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

So? That doesn't make it wrong...

Why does it make it right?

Because people who know a lot more about climate change, study it for a living, and have no horse in the race are all saying the same thing. Nobody on this board spends 40-60 hours a week studying it. Nobody on this board is a scientist who specialises in climate change. Nobody on this board can give a cohesive, fact-driven (backed up by peer review solid links) that negates what those that specialise in the field are saying. I listen to those who deal in the facts.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because that is not what he's talking about. What is settled is that global warming is taking place and that human activity is providing the dominant forcing.

That of course isn't settled either. When you use .00004% of the data sample, you're not exactly arguing for something that has credibility.

Really? OK. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and represents a clear and present danger. Against that we have fruitloops like you stating that you know better that most of the scientists in the world.

Ask one what the cause was for the temperature increase about 150,000 years ago. Just an eye blink in the cosmic scale of global temperature history. Then when they can't answer that one, ask what the reason was for the rapid decline about 30,000 years later.

When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

And you expect that to yield an accurate projection. And you're calling ME a frootloop?

My, you are a pretty stupid fellow, aren't you. Now, were you to take some lower division course in Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Biology, and Mathematics and get up to speed on basic science, you might not post such drivel.

Chemical Engineering major in college, kind of ahead of you there sport. I'd advise adding Systems Analysis to the list. Helps a lot.

Really? And yet you reject all the evidence presented by other scientists? Now I find that odd. In fact, I have yet to meet any of the professors I am taking classes from that state that AGW is not correct. Now they have different opinions as to the speed of progression, and what they primary dangers are. But as to the warming itself, and the cause of that warming, they are uninamous.

 

[westwall]

[QUOTE="O
When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

So? That doesn't make it wrong...

Why does it make it right?

Because people who know a lot more about climate change, study it for a living, and have no horse in the race are all saying the same thing. Nobody on this board spends 40-60 hours a week studying it. Nobody on this board is a scientist who specialises in climate change. Nobody on this board can give a cohesive, fact-driven (backed up by peer review solid links) that negates what those that specialise in the field are saying. I listen to those who deal in the facts.

And, as has been shown over, and over, and over again they can't do simple math. EVERY prediction they have made has been wrong. You fawn all over these clowns and they have a worse predictive rate than known charlatans like Sylvia Browne. How does that make you feel?

 

[IanC]

[QUOTE="O
When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

So? That doesn't make it wrong...

Why does it make it right?

Because people who know a lot more about climate change, study it for a living, and have no horse in the race are all saying the same thing. Nobody on this board spends 40-60 hours a week studying it. Nobody on this board is a scientist who specialises in climate change. Nobody on this board can give a cohesive, fact-driven (backed up by peer review solid links) that negates what those that specialise in the field are saying. I listen to those who deal in the facts.

And, as has been shown over, and over, and over again they can't do simple math. EVERY prediction they have made has been wrong. You fawn all over these clowns and they have a worse predictive rate than known charlatans like Sylvia Browne. How does that make you feel?

there is another thing that bothers me. climate science keeps moving the goal posts. skeptical scientists have forced the consensus to back away from their previous positions on such things as climate sensitivity for 2xCO2, or the MWP, but every time they take a step back they pretend that that was their original position all along and it had nothing to do with outsiders pointing out the flaws. I suppose I should just be happy that they are moving (slowly) back towards reality but the scientific method demands that credit goes to those that discover things, whether they are new ideas or flaws in previous ideas. climate science scoffs at the skeptics, then silently correct things in the background and pretend it had nothing to do with their critics.

 

[westwall]

[QUOTE="O
When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

So? That doesn't make it wrong...

Why does it make it right?

Because people who know a lot more about climate change, study it for a living, and have no horse in the race are all saying the same thing. Nobody on this board spends 40-60 hours a week studying it. Nobody on this board is a scientist who specialises in climate change. Nobody on this board can give a cohesive, fact-driven (backed up by peer review solid links) that negates what those that specialise in the field are saying. I listen to those who deal in the facts.

And, as has been shown over, and over, and over again they can't do simple math. EVERY prediction they have made has been wrong. You fawn all over these clowns and they have a worse predictive rate than known charlatans like Sylvia Browne. How does that make you feel?

there is another thing that bothers me. climate science keeps moving the goal posts. skeptical scientists have forced the consensus to back away from their previous positions on such things as climate sensitivity for 2xCO2, or the MWP, but every time they take a step back they pretend that that was their original position all along and it had nothing to do with outsiders pointing out the flaws. I suppose I should just be happy that they are moving (slowly) back towards reality but the scientific method demands that credit goes to those that discover things, whether they are new ideas or flaws in previous ideas. climate science scoffs at the skeptics, then silently correct things in the background and pretend it had nothing to do with their critics.

Of course they move the goal posts. Every time they're wrong they change what they claimed they said and hope that no one will notice. olfraud and crickey are huge practitioners of that lost art....

 

[Dr Grump]

And, as has been shown over, and over, and over again they can't do simple math. EVERY prediction they have made has been wrong. You fawn all over these clowns and they have a worse predictive rate than known charlatans like Sylvia Browne. How does that make you feel?

Proven by who? Links please....

 

[IanC]

And, as has been shown over, and over, and over again they can't do simple math. EVERY prediction they have made has been wrong. You fawn all over these clowns and they have a worse predictive rate than known charlatans like Sylvia Browne. How does that make you feel?

Proven by who? Links please....

ClimateChangePredictions.org – dud predictions about global warming

it's not all of them but it's a start

 

[Wyatt earp]

[QUOTE="O
When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

So? That doesn't make it wrong...

Why does it make it right?

Because people who know a lot more about climate change, study it for a living, and have no horse in the race are all saying the same thing. Nobody on this board spends 40-60 hours a week studying it. Nobody on this board is a scientist who specialises in climate change. Nobody on this board can give a cohesive, fact-driven (backed up by peer review solid links) that negates what those that specialise in the field are saying. I listen to those who deal in the facts.

WTF? Have no horse in the race?


What are you some kind of fool? Name me one ....

 

[Crick]

It's kinda hard to argue anyone's better off listening to bloggers and pundits than to actual experts