An inconvenient Absence
-
The objective accumulation of work IS work.
All data is just data until it is analyzed and structured, to produce INFORMATION.
Now, that information, Sev, is still information, even when YOUR IDEOLOGY doesn't
like it.
However, before, we had our legit articles dissed because the authors weren't PHD's in CLIMATE SCIENCE.
Now, your side has resorted to,
"well, yeah, but our scientists do WORK".
Sad. But even sadder, is the willingness to blindly follow the liberal idealogy and defend it no matter
how hard it is to accomplish.
-
The objective accumulation of work IS work.
All data is just data until it is analyzed and structured, to produce INFORMATION.
Now, that information, Sev, is still information, even when YOUR IDEOLOGY doesn't
like it.
However, before, we had our legit articles dissed because the authors weren't PHD's in CLIMATE SCIENCE.
Now, your side has resorted to,
"well, yeah, but our scientists do WORK".
Sad. But even sadder, is the willingness to blindly follow the liberal idealogy and defend it no matter
how hard it is to accomplish.
The objective accumulation of work IS work.
All data is just data until it is analyzed and structured, to produce INFORMATION.
Now, that information, Sev, is still information, even when YOUR IDEOLOGY doesn't
like it. However, before, we had our legit articles dissed because the authors weren't PHD's in CLIMATE SCIENCE.
Now, your side has resorted to,
"well, yeah, but our scientists do WORK".
Sad. But even sadder, is the willingness to blindly follow the liberal idealogy and defend it no matter
how hard it is to accomplish.
Um cal that is EXACTLY what your side does NOT have..... all they have been putting out is opinions...
Articles spouting opinions are NOT studies that are reviewed and replicated which is again why your side has problems in the first place....
the "blind" part is following opinion........ we are not following opinions but studies and data from every field in science that is pointing to trends...... your side is following nothing but PR and opinions.... that is essentially the problem.
funny really.
-
Even with "The hypothesis" of "human-caused global warming" and a silly petition.
How do these same scientists, explain the fact the 1 degree that suppposdly by aka "Algorian's mad science project" says that humans raised the earth's temp. -----> And that Now it has cooled itself back off? Why?
hmm. My take is their aint shit we can do about it. unless you feel like giving Billions of dollars away for no reason.
Well AlGorian needs money for his "LockBox".
Not to offend any "Captain Planet Wannabees" I wish you guys well in saving the planet. Now get started first by picking up the litter.
-
Obviously the earth was once a much warmer place, at least long enough for the Vikings to settle Greenland, burn Birch trees off of what is now permafrost and supports no plant life, and successfully farm on what is now Permafrost, with barnyard smells being trapped in the permanently frozen ground.
But wait.. the MWP didn't exist, at least that's what MMGW propontents wanted you to believe when they tried to hide the Medieval warm period.
-
Scientist: Earth Cooling, Not Warming
http://newsmax.com/Headline/global-warming...04/24/id/323514
A San Francisco-based scientist says that current solar activity strongly indicates that the earth is on the verge of a new ice age.
"Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh," warns Phil Chapman writing in The Australian. Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.
"The scariest photo I have seen . . . is at www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory [sOHO], located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity," Chapman wrote, adding ominously that "what is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot."
"This is where SOHO comes in," he explained. "The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No. 24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers."
That, he writes did not happen. "The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon."
Why? According to Chapman "there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots."
Although the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No. 24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection, Chapman warns that it is cause for concern.
"Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming," he explains, "the average temperature on earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.
"All four agencies that track earth's temperature [the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California] report that it cooled by about 0.7 C in 2007." This, he says is "the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."
Moreover, he says, there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold, noting that it snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.
Chapman wrote that the global warming dogma should be put aside, "at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850."
How bad could a new little ice age be? "Much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now, and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the U.S. and Canada." Global warming, he added, "would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it [such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate], and millions more will die from cold-related diseases."
And grim as that outlook is, Chapman predicts that there is also another possibility, remote but much more serious — the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet and under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5 km of ice.
This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.
The present interglacial period we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so an ice age is overdue. And glaciation can occur quickly: The required decline in global temperature is about 12 C and it can happen in 20 years.
His conclusions: "The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1,000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14 C cooler in 2027."
By then, he writes, "most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining."
"All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinders and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead," he writes. "It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake."
-
I hope you actually read this story..... I like the 2007 reference and where it comes from......
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ ........ this is called data representing trends from over a specified length of time not an opinion piece....
-
I am sure this data must not exist....... if you want to randomly pull stories and post you really should actually read it and than make sure its based on the most recent information if you want to use it as a rebuttal about well documented scientific information....
take a GOOD look at the charts......... cooling is not represented in a singular season nor is it even represented over 5 years..... the information is pretty indisputable....... Like I said trends based upon data not pr pieces or opinions looking at singular snap shots.
-
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090121/
Easterm Antartica cooling huh..... looks like the studies dont match that opinion piece.... already published and reviewed....
-
Here's a great article that explains this whole biz, Sev.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...ooling-or-both/
-
Here's a great article that explains this whole biz, Sev.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...ooling-or-both/
Here's a great article that explains this whole biz, Sev.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...ooling-or-both/
um hate to break this to you but this is from 2007 when at the time it did have merit. Even recently the British Antartic study has published similar results of cooling on the interior of the continent but warming all around..... in combination with the latest report from the University of Washington that combines satellite data from Nasa and onsite stations in 2009 data and found an overall warming which I already posted....
I also hate to break this to you, the Antartic issues are not really controversial except to the popular media.......
climate models predict that temperature trends due to global warming will be much smaller in Antarctica than in the Arctic, mainly because heat uptake by the Southern Ocean acts to moderate the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases. The depletion of stratospheric ozone also has had a cooling effect, since ozone acts as a greenhouse gas.
Like I said its pretty overwhelming
-
Well, I hate to break this to you, Sev, but Nasa scientists ended up with errors in their data.
A satellite drifted off course, giving some daytime temps as night-time temps.
I also hate to break this to you, too -
the errors were discovered in 2005, so go look it up.
Wait, I'll go get a link for ya...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-...ming-data_x.htm
Cherry picking date ranges can get anybody any dumb conclusion they want.
The truth is - mmgw in NO FACT. It's just a theory that cannot be established as fact,
given other studies that find errors, and conclusions based on segmented, incomplete data.
BTW, just what was it that caused the Ice Age to melt away?
Too much man made..... what?
-
Well, I hate to break this to you, Sev, but Nasa scientists ended up with errors in their data.
A satellite drifted off course, giving some daytime temps as night-time temps.
I also hate to break this to you, too -
the errors were discovered in 2005, so go look it up.
Wait, I'll go get a link for ya...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-...ming-data_x.htm
Cherry picking date ranges can get anybody any dumb conclusion they want.
The truth is - mmgw in NO FACT. It's just a theory that cannot be established as fact,
given other studies that find errors, and conclusions based on segmented, incomplete data.
BTW, just what was it that caused the Ice Age to melt away?
Too much man made..... what?
Well, I hate to break this to you, Sev, but Nasa scientists ended up with errors in their data.
A satellite drifted off course, giving some daytime temps as night-time temps.
I also hate to break this to you, too -
the errors were discovered in 2005, so go look it up.
Wait, I'll go get a link for ya...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-...ming-data_x.htm
Cherry picking date ranges can get anybody any dumb conclusion they want.
The truth is - mmgw in NO FACT. It's just a theory that cannot be established as fact,
given other studies that find errors, and conclusions based on segmented, incomplete data.
BTW, just what was it that caused the Ice Age to melt away?
Too much man made..... what?
um cal you obviously did not read the links Im glad you brought up the errors in 2005........ the data and studies I posted were all from 2009....... where they were already corrected and more information added
do you read or source anything before you think?
as for your "ice age" which I suppose you mean glacial and interglacial periods considering we are still in the ice age that started in the Pleistocene........
Your question shows an oversimplification and quite frankly that you dont understand the terminology that your are using. as for interglacial periods "going away" the milankovitich cycle, solar apex which runs literally parrallel to mass extinctions on our planet(major impacts from meteors/etc), the before mentioned major impacts, super volcanoes (like Yellowstone), plate tectonics...... etc
Its odd that for a person who has made many strong opinionated statements you seem to not even understand the terminology you are using..... its like you have not read or studied the core subject matter you seem to feel so strongly about.
It really is irrelevant who is "right" or wrong..... its the trends in data from so many different sources, like I stated before there still exist tons of variables and factors that we still dont understand or can underestimate. whether we are a tipping point or a major contribution is again irrelevant we literally have ONE planet to live on within the goldilocks belt of our own solar system. Right now we dont have options to go anywhere else so why not be a whole lot more reasonable and CONSERVative? Short terms gains is all about selfish behavior not responsible long term behavior and planning. I really can understand the skepticism IF we had other options but we do not.
The right side of this "debate" shows an amazing inability to grasp logic.....This type of behavior has a name argmentum ad consequentiam meaning X is true or false because of how much i like or dislike its consequences (consequences could be as simple as personally being right or wrong or much more complicated)
-
Well, I hate to break this to you, Sev, but Nasa scientists ended up with errors in their data.
A satellite drifted off course, giving some daytime temps as night-time temps.
I also hate to break this to you, too -
the errors were discovered in 2005, so go look it up.
Wait, I'll go get a link for ya...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-...ming-data_x.htm
Cherry picking date ranges can get anybody any dumb conclusion they want.
The truth is - mmgw in NO FACT. It's just a theory that cannot be established as fact,
given other studies that find errors, and conclusions based on segmented, incomplete data.
BTW, just what was it that caused the Ice Age to melt away?
Too much man made..... what?
um cal you obviously did not read the links Im glad you brought up the errors in 2005........ the data and studies I posted were all from 2009....... where they were already corrected and more information added
do you read or source anything before you think?
as for your "ice age" which I suppose you mean glacial and interglacial periods considering we are still in the ice age that started in the Pleistocene........
Your question shows an oversimplification and quite frankly that you dont understand the terminology that your are using. as for interglacial periods "going away" the milankovitich cycle, solar apex which runs literally parrallel to mass extinctions on our planet(major impacts from meteors/etc), the before mentioned major impacts, super volcanoes (like Yellowstone), plate tectonics...... etc
Its odd that for a person who has made many strong opinionated statements you seem to not even understand the terminology you are using..... its like you have not read or studied the core subject matter you seem to feel so strongly about.
It really is irrelevant who is "right" or wrong..... its the trends in data from so many different sources, like I stated before there still exist tons of variables and factors that we still dont understand or can underestimate. whether we are a tipping point or a major contribution is again irrelevant we literally have ONE planet to live on within the goldilocks belt of our own solar system. Right now we dont have options to go anywhere else so why not be a whole lot more reasonable and CONSERVative? Short terms gains is all about selfish behavior not responsible long term behavior and planning. I really can understand the skepticism IF we had other options but we do not.
The right side of this "debate" shows an amazing inability to grasp logic.....This type of behavior has a name argmentum ad consequentiam meaning X is true or false because of how much i like or dislike its consequences (consequences could be as simple as personally being right or wrong or much more complicated)
-
steve the term liberal can be used in the same context i use conservative and is often just as contradictory.
I know on these posts it may seem I am "liberal" I suppose in terms of conservationism I am, and somewhat at times when it comes to federal business regulations (within reason)/ well healthcare also....
crap maybe as I get older I suppose the I do have classic "liberal" leanings on those three topics..... whatever i suppose if that is a label on those topics it is what it is.
-
steve the term liberal can be used in the same context i use conservative and is often just as contradictory.
I know on these posts it may seem I am "liberal" I suppose in terms of conservationism I am, and somewhat at times when it comes to federal business regulations (within reason)/ well healthcare also....
crap maybe as I get older I suppose the I do have classic "liberal" leanings on those three topics..... whatever i suppose if that is a label on those topics it is what it is.
steve the term liberal can be used in the same context i use conservative and is often just as contradictory.
I know on these posts it may seem I am "liberal" I suppose in terms of conservationism I am, and somewhat at times when it comes to federal business regulations (within reason)/ well healthcare also....
crap maybe as I get older I suppose the I do have classic "liberal" leanings on those three topics..... whatever i suppose if that is a label on those topics it is what it is.
Could be Sev.
You're the guy that keeps using the labels; I don't think I do often. They aren't that accurate when you break 'em down.
Personally I just can't take this global warming debate seriously for reasons I've mentioned often.
Has little to do with liberal or conservative.
WSS
-
Oh, I read the articles, Sev.
But correcting to accrue CORRECT DATA doesn't mean that they can go back
and retroactively reread temps and times, YA THINK ? OR NOT ?
And, continuing to quote the theory, and not being able to accurately have any idea what the temps were...
and ONE TREE RING IN SIBERIA,
Sev, you are on a sinking ship by hanging onto Gore's shirt-tails.
The truth is out. mmgw is just a theory with cooked up politically expedient results, achieved by cherry picking data.
It's been proven. It's a fact.
YOU used the terms, I didn't, Sev.
But, LOL, I have just recently posted that as a last resort to cya, you mmgw "facters" resort to
"but gosh, we believe in taking care of our planet "sniff" Don't you guys care about pollution?"
and you ... just.... did... it.... again.
Dang, I am really good, eh?
You can understand skepticism to the mmgw nonsense, but... not when this is the only planet we have to live on?
And you are serious?
Come on, Sev, buddy, your political cya isn't bought by some of us customers.
We ain't buyin unfactual facts, despite you rationalizing sales pitch.
Tell Algore the Ogre he's about 26 cards short of having a full deck to think with.
-
Here:
An article that also adds to the justification for serious skepticism.
politically oriented theory, not necessarily how it started, but how it quickly ended up.
The truth is coming out Sev. Rationalizing and defending isn't squelching skepticism, because
that skepticism is being supported by facts.
-
liberlism = socialism according to another community organizer Saul D. Alinsky who wrote "Rules for Radicals"
Outlining his strategy in organizing Alinsky writes:
"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."[2]Alinsky codified and wrote a clear set of rules[3] for community organizing. His rules for radicals are now used as key tactics to learn in the training of new community organizers.
In a separate chapter he suggests that the perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands: the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"
Alinsky continues by stating several rules of the ethics of means and ends:
- The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
- In war the end justifies almost any means.
- Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
- Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
- The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
- Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
- The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
- Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
- You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
- Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."
These rules of the ethics of means and ends are only one chapter of his book, totally distinct from his "clear set of rules for community organizing." For example, his rule 12 is "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
And if the rules for radicals isnt bad enough I am holding another piece of trash in my left hand as I type, should be a very comical read, "The Communist manifesto"
-
Ha. I see that Sev is trying to do his best and getting nowhere. Cheers, Sev.
Thought you guys would find this interesting, since you still can't get beyond the "It was cold where I live for a couple weeks so global warming doesn't exist" line of argument, as elementary as it may be:
"The globe recorded its eighth warmest December since record keeping began in 1880, and 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated December 2009 as the 4th warmest December on record, and the year 2009 tied with 2007 as the second warmest year on record."
Seems to run counter to the point of this thread, no?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login