Nothing says "proven scientific data" like Newsmax and telling people to Google.
I think my disdain for people grows a little everyday.
Nothing says "proven scientific data" like Newsmax and telling people to Google.
I think my disdain for people grows a little everyday.
and you have nothing to say about the 1st article from yahoo wich is comign from NASA data. owait .. you can't come against that can you? pls go away troll.
infact here about global colling going on based on NOAA data for past 15+ years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/1...e-near-future/
Infracted: Please do not call other users trollsBecause of the Urban Heat Island effect ,the built in local variability of the NH land data and the thermal inertia of the oceans, Sea Surface Temperatures are the best measure of global temperature trends. These show that the global warming trend ended in about 2003. THERE HAS NOW BEEN NO NET WARMING SINCE 1997 -15 YEARS WITH CO2 RISING 8.5% WITH NO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE. SINCE 2003 THE TREND IS NEGATIVE.
To check the past years go to
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ano...1-2000mean.dat
and for monthly updates go to.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ano...1-2000mean.dat
The 2012 average NCDC SST anomaly thru Sept was .4438 versus the 1997 annual anomaly of .4575.
The peak anomaly was .5207 in 2003.
An excellent site for reviewing all the basic temperature data is http://www.climate4you.com/
Last edited by Pendulous; 2012-12-11 at 05:21 AM.
Have a look at NASA's actual page: http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
No, NASA's not on the denialist fuckwit bandwagon.
Infracted: Please refrain from insulting others
Last edited by Pendulous; 2012-12-11 at 05:37 AM.
Volcano's also produce more "good stuff" that replenishes the Ozone layer too than the "bad stuff"...
It pays to stay informed, and not listen to Rush Limbaugh and those who deliberately don't tell you the whole truth...
---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 05:29 AM ----------
Nope, you eventually die off and get replaced by somebody who does believe it.
Just like those who forced Galileo to recant the very notion that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. They die off, and today people regard Galileo's finding as basic common sense...
Same with people who believed the world was flat... those people are long gone, or living in small huts in a 3rd world country.
Last edited by mvaliz; 2012-12-11 at 05:30 AM.
i'm pretty sure the only people who don't believe in global warming are the people not intelligent enough to comprehend it, and it's really not that difficult. I suppose that's just one of many reasons, another would probably be "well, my company makes billions a year off of emissions, and I don't feel no temperature risin' every year i'm on dis here urf."
but hey, maybe all of these scientists and all of this data that people have posted and has already been known is just some huge SCARE by hippies to get big, greedy companies to cut down on their emissions... 'cause all we care about is bringing the big guy down.
In fact....no.
This is how you perceive things in your global cooling bubble world that you live in:
This is how things are in realville, also known as reality:
In other words. Yeah. The earth is not cooling. It's getting warmer. Unless you want to cherry-pick data. In which case it is cooling.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
I wanna know what physics has to say about it, I mean I can put a lid on a boiling pot of water and pretty much disprove the theory of mankind having a major role in global climate change simply because of how heat dispersion works and knowing that containing heat creates pressure, not only that but due to science I also know what happens when you have two opposing heat sources, in this case mankind being one with the sun being the other.
It's simple. People who can convince themselves that magical, floating, invisible deities exist can pretty much convince themselves of anything, including discounting the overwhelming evidence in support of global warming.
There's a lot of reasons to not believe in global warming.
1. Over my lifetime, I've seen endless amounts of what I term "hot science". Hot science is where some people do some studies and draw some conclusions. Then years later, they look back and realize they all got it wrong. The problem is, confirmation bias prevents people from making adjustments. Some areas where I've seen it include: miracle diet "superfoods", TED talks (this thing is nothing but a bunch of hot science if I ever saw it). When I was a kid, I remember DIRE threats from global warming activists, telling us the oceans would all be dead by the year 2000 if we didn't radically change course. It was a complete farce as it turns out. Why would anyone who lived through those times not, at the very least, be extremely skeptical about the claims being put forth now? For us who grew up in the 1980s, global warming has been some sort of imminent threat for the past, oh, 30 years...
2. The fact that it has become COMPLETELY politicized. The worst thing that could have happened to the global warming movement was to get Al Gore as the face of the debate. That is going to cause many democrats to blindly accept whatever is said at face value, and many republicans to blindly dismiss everything at face value. Now we don't have a chance at honest debate about the issues, just talking points. The entire debate is now stigmatized and as a consequence people will avoid the issue altogether.
3. I don't see it as a threat. The fact is, fossil fuels are on their way out, and will be replaced by solar in two decades. When that happens, carbon emissions will fall through the FLOOR, and so even if global warming alarmists are correct, technology will fix the problem quite soon.
You might find the work of Richard Muller, a Berkeley Physicist, and former climate change skeptic, compelling.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...iC1L_blog.html
---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 12:47 AM ----------
Yeah I don't get that at all. What is he trying to say? How do heat sources oppose each other, and what is the result? More heat? I'm confused.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
I think everyone with half a brain can admit the climate is changing. The problem is that we have far too small a sample size relative to Earth's history to statistically prove causation and the timing of our genuinely accurate data happened to coincide with the end of a mini-ice age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
As far as we can tell, we're hotter than ever, but data prior to the 20th century is increasingly unreliable the further back you go. If someone went back and showed that we were far hotter than we are now 2500 years ago, I wouldn't expect the man-made climate change crowd to instantly give up their position and in the same way it's unrealistic to expect the skeptics to give up their position without providing a sample size that's greater than 1% of human history and 0.000002% of Earth's history (or whatever it'd be).
Last edited by Abysal; 2012-12-11 at 05:51 AM.
Interesting seeing all of these global warming deniers linking articles that are either false, or even better, prove them wrong.
Richard Muller was never a skeptic. This is Richard Muller in 2008:
And this was Michael Mann's response to the claims Mr Muller made at the same time as declaring himself a converted Skeptic.“If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.”
I would be careful pointing to the work of someone who clearly has an agenda which trumps science.My view is that Muller’s efforts to promote himself by belittling the collective efforts of the entire atmospheric/climate research community over several decades, though, really does the scientific community a disservice. Its great that he’s reaffirmed what we already knew. But for him to pretend that we couldn’t trust this entire scientific field until Richard Muller put his personal stamp of approval on their conclusions is, in my view, a very dangerously misguided philosophical take on how science works. It seems, in the end–quite sadly–that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement