Print

[menchhofer]

This was originally posted in the wrong thread, my bad.

Another fantastic global warming/climate change pseudo-science support find!   

....the silence in this thread is deafening!

Well that^^ and the usual hypocrisy from the more vocal government supporters of global warming just turns me off the entire theory. It is just a theory after all, during the drought and heatwave of 2012 that was used as the perfect example of global warming, then comes 2013 which was wet and cooler than normal here, that was used as an example of global warming, then came last winter with record setting cold and snow fall and that was blamed on global warming, pick one and run with it. During the 70's it was the next ice age, now it's everything blamed on global warming. If back when global warming was first brought up and everything came true, Florida would be under water, polar bears would be extinct and all the polar ice would be gone, instead we have Florida doing just fine, polar bears are/were going hungry, not because the ice is gone but because its too thick and the seals aren't popping up for the polar bears to eat.

I would say you are confusing weather with climate. Quite a difference.

So man can continue to pollute our lands, seas and air of the earth without changing the current environment?

[mlappin]

Man isn't polluting like he used to, a lot of harbors in major city's are actually safe to swim in now. Municipalities no longer dump raw sewage directly into water ways.

The air is cleaner than it has been in decades, we actually have to pay for sulfur to be added to our fertilizers now as before it was free from all the acid rain.

[Jwood]

Menchhofer you almost have me convinced you are somehow in cahoots with Neal! And Neal how did I know you'd think my statement was idiotic. Back to you menchhofer why don't you tell us what you are personally doing to help reverse climate change, go ahead Neal you too.

[slimjim]

   Jwood, that sounds like a great thread!!!

[NaturallyAspirated]

Menchhofer you almost have me convinced you are somehow in cahoots with Neal! And Neal how did I know you'd think my statement was idiotic. Back to you menchhofer why don't you tell us what you are personally doing to help reverse climate change, go ahead Neal you too.

Well of course it is idiotic, you are trying to equate a micro precise prediction of weather compared against a macro trending of observations.  It's simply stupid to think of the two as even close to the same thing.  It shows a lack of comprehension as to what is understood on the topic.

Personally I have done very little, however that doesn't bar me from admitting that we are changing the climate.

Neal

[Sloppy_Snood]

Personally I have done very little, however that doesn't bar me from admitting that we are changing the climate. Neal

Have you statistically trended your flatulence output of your life so far.... you know... for climate change impact and global?  j/k

On a more serious note Neal, the collective "we" are indeed changing the climate.... so are they collective "they" (take your pick of non-human animal species, etc.).

The world is ALWAYS changing.... but the climate change and global warming alarmists are suddenly interested in it?

The question in my mind is this:  why is it that "we" (does not include myself) are suddenly interested in it and alarmed by it?

Rates of change and impact of change vary much like the ebb and flow of the tides.  This is not new.

I encourage veryone to read more on the published papers of Swedish meteorologist Professor Lennart Bengtsson.  He knows significantly more about global warming, climate change , and metoerology than any politician nor global warming (farce) activist.

"The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist," said Bengtsson, who spoke of unbearable pressure coming from other researchers after he submitted his paper. "It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the models. " - Swedish meteorologist Professor Lennart Bengtsson

On the subject of computer modeling,,,, I love the computer meteorological modeling on the Weather Channel.  Fantastic what can be accomplished during weather events but.... not one of them has been even >50% accurate in tracking a hurricane from origin (start) to present condition (straight up guessing is 50/50).   Not sure why climate change and global warming models would be any different.  *** yawn***

[NaturallyAspirated]

Personally I have done very little, however that doesn't bar me from admitting that we are changing the climate. Neal

Have you statistically trended your flatulence output of your life so far.... you know... for climate change impact and global?  j/k

On a more serious note Neal, the collective "we" are indeed changing the climate.... so are they collective "they" (take your pick of non-human animal species, etc.).

The world is ALWAYS changing.... but the climate change and global warming alarmists are suddenly interested in it?

The question in my mind is this:  why is it that "we" (does not include myself) are suddenly interested in it and alarmed by it?

Rates of change and impact of change vary much like the ebb and flow of the tides.  This is not new.

I encourage veryone to read more on the published papers of Swedish meteorologist Professor Lennart Bengtsson.  He knows significantly more about global warming, climate change , and metoerology than any politician nor global warming (farce) activist.

"The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist," said Bengtsson, who spoke of unbearable pressure coming from other researchers after he submitted his paper. "It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the models. " - Swedish meteorologist Professor Lennart Bengtsson

On the subject of computer modeling,,,, I love the computer meteorological modeling on the Weather Channel.  Fantastic what can be accomplished during weather events but.... not one of them has been even >50% accurate in tracking a hurricane from origin (start) to present condition (straight up guessing is 50/50).   Not sure why climate change and global warming models would be any different.  *** yawn***

Of course the climate is always changing, again that doesn't mean that we are not having an overbearing impact on what the climate is capable of dealing with, especially on the short time periods that humans experience.  If, as it seems that we are, kicking the climate change into high gear, a speed with which has not been seen in recent history it seems highly foolish to take on an ignorant position.

Neal

[Sloppy_Snood]

If, as it seems that we are, kicking the climate change into high gear, a speed with which has not been seen in recent history it seems highly foolish to take on an ignorant position. Neal

Once the purity of a scientific discipline is tainted with the political ideologies and National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientific grant funding (our U.S. tax dollars), the science is no longer completely objective.

Having personally been involved with obtaining federal-subsidized grant monies of approximately as a part of my graduate school experience, I can tell you this Neal:  you have no clue as to the influence of promised funding to science if the results support the desired results/conclusion of the entity providing the funding.  (I will retract this statement if you indeed have ever been involved in the research grant proposal process in any scientific discipline).

You read it.  I have lived it and experienced it firsthand.  Big difference my friend.  -Scott

[NaturallyAspirated]

If, as it seems that we are, kicking the climate change into high gear, a speed with which has not been seen in recent history it seems highly foolish to take on an ignorant position. Neal

Once the purity of a scientific discipline is tainted with the political ideologies and National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientific grant funding (our U.S. tax dollars), the science is no longer completely objective.

Having personally been involved with obtaining federal-subsidized grant monies of approximately as a part of my graduate school experience, I can tell you this Neal:  you have no clue as to the influence of promised funding to science if the results support the desired results/conclusion of the entity providing the funding.  (I will retract this statement if you indeed have ever been involved in the research grant proposal process in any scientific discipline).

You read it.  I have lived it and experienced it firsthand.  Big difference my friend.  -Scott

Can you provide any evidence of grants tied specifically outlining research that must prove climate change to be true? 

Can you provide any grants that are given to denying anthropic climate change?

Neal

[mlappin]

http://www.caintv.com/sorry-global-warmists-the-97-p

[NaturallyAspirated]

http://www.caintv.com/sorry-global-warmists-the-97-p

The PR spout for Hermin Cain, the man who wants big oil CEO's on the EPA board.  No intellectual bias there at all....   

Neal

[atvalaska]

how's about .gov shut thehell up and leave us alone??

[mlappin]

http://www.caintv.com/sorry-global-warmists-the-97-p

The PR spout for Hermin Cain, the man who wants big oil CEO's on the EPA board.  No intellectual bias there at all....   

Neal

Don't see what would be so horrible about actually having people on the EPA board that would know just how devastating some of their policies could be to business, jobs and the economy if fully implemented.