An inconvenient Absence
-
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?
-
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?
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?
OK.
So with cap and trade going nowhere (and no change in sight even if it did) tell us this:
So what?
Since you're obsessed with the issue tell us what's in store.
WSS
-
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....
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....
haha.... published and reviewed by who? The MMGW proponents have NO credibility now, lest we forget. Remember the emails about excluding those who disagreed with their theories from the peer review process? And I also believe there was talk of cherry picking data, suppressing other data, and then manipulating data.
-
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?
OK.
So with cap and trade going nowhere (and no change in sight even if it did) tell us this:
So what?
Since you're obsessed with the issue tell us what's in store.
WSS
OK.
So with cap and trade going nowhere (and no change in sight even if it did) tell us this:
So what?
Since you're obsessed with the issue tell us what's in store.
WSS
Steve, I'm just trying to help them past the "Hey, it's snowing outside my house so global warming is hooey!" stage. And if you're still in that stage, there really isn't much point in debating what's beyond it, is there? It's like trying to debate the West Coast offense with someone who still doesn't understand what a quarterback does.
I mean, look at Sev in this thread. He actually knows this stuff, whereas all the other guys obviously don't, and have to cut and paste other people's opinions because their opinions are simply adopted from the political people they read or listen to. This should probably chasten them a bit, but it clearly doesn't. Once they're beaten, they just pick up another line and try that. And then the cycle repeats.
As for what comes next, I don't know what the point of your question is. Cap and trade is hanging in the balance, especially after a Brown win today, which he seems to be headed towards. And so you're faced with the prospect of EPA regulations, which nobody wants. So maybe you get some sort of watered down bill instead, which is all you can get out of Congress today. So there's a real prospect that greenhouse gas emissions will continue pretty much unabated, which is pretty bad news for the planet.
Besides, you're still stuck in your rut, which is to claim that there's no difference between emissions under a cap and trade system and emissions without one. So there's really no point in arguing with you either, which is why I don't, and periodically check in here to see what crazy people think is true this month.
-
Whats so funny about this whole thing is how only democrats want to tax the air you exhale and tax the weather outside.
Whats next a tax on how many hairs are on your head. The whole argument is getting ridiculous, especially when they have to fabricate their info.
-
Democrats don't want to tax the air you exhale or the weather. (Where do you get this stuff?) You're just a lunatic who doesn't know anything, T. That's all there is to it.
-
And, Heck, you are a loser who keeps bailing out of the forum and keeps coming back when
you think that we forgot that you seem to be the one who reads articles, then pens in your opinions like they were yours.
In my reading, I have more than 3 times read posts by "experts", in nearly the exact same words as you.
Coincidence? Or not?
BTW, you never answered my question - did you, Shep, Mzbeetlejuice, and Al know each other, or
some subgroup of the above, on some other forum @@ before you came here?
I ask, because, seems to me, that none of the above ever said how they are Browns fans, love the Browns, etc...........
and you seem to share the same arrogance in your cherry picked articles.
After all the posts to the contrary of mmgw, they start all over AGAIN at the beginning, arguing the same premise.
"Deja vu all over again"
Answer to the question, mr phoney knowitall ?
-
No, we didn't know each other. Sorry if this ruins some sort of conspiracy you've created in your head.
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