I got yer mmgw proof of bs right here
-
Yep. Woodypeckerhead is the butt of the board.
Read the truth:
http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/Lesson1_graphs.htm
-
Remember that thread I posted about the tactics of science denialists? You follow it exactly...
-
No proof, just sissy, cowardly denial of science. too bad. you rank poorly on
the human being meter, woodpecker.
-
Lol... I'm the denier. Classic
-
*sigh*
That article/website screams "scientifically accurate" BTW.
It looks like a simple case of cherry picking data. I'm at work right now though. Maybe some one else can debunk you ...again
*sigh*
That article/website screams "scientifically accurate" BTW.
It looks like a simple case of cherry picking data. I'm at work right now though. Maybe some one else can debunk you ...again
then how about this?
The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
-
-
Biased liberal nonsense...
Everyone knows NASA is a liberal group!
(If someone here says that, I'll laugh my ass off.)
-
Global warming is fake because it's getting colder in the USA. Good to know. I guess the fact that the whole world is getting warmer is irrelevant? I followed the link offered by your website - I was pleasantly surprised that one was provided - to the underlying data from NOAA. Indeed, in the last 14 years, the average US temperature has shown a gentle decline, in contrast to the previous 14 years. But this is GLOBAL warming - we need to take in to account things beyond the borders of the 48 states. Yes, things do exist beyond your borders.
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
Science time. Carbon dioxide is a necessary gas for life on this planet. If there were no carbon dioxide, the plants wouldn't be able to produce oxygen for us - but this wouldn't be a concern considering the planet would be an ice ball. We can observe the effect produced by the greenhouse gasses - of which carbon dioxide is one - by the fact that we have a relatively temperate climate.
There have been ice-ages before, and there will be in the future. That's not the issue. CO2 levels have been relatively cyclical over the history of our planet, ranging from ~200 - 275 parts per million by volume (ppmv) (see chart), and we should, according to that cycle, be seeing a decrease in CO2 around the current time. As it stands, we're currently sitting around 400ppmv.
The portion of CO2 attributable to humans every year is pretty small, we can all agree. However, when you consider what the world is capable of dealing with, absorbing and turning back in to oxygen, that few million tonnes becomes a much bigger issue because it can't be absorbed.
-
All that proves, Chris, is that weather fluctuates on it's own.
Since the beginning of our planet's plant and animal life.
Like some experts I have quoted... they say the mmgw is a political and financial gambit.
-
You posted an article claiming that since the temperature in the US has shown a decline over 15 years, that global warming was a hoax; I explained that since the warming is *global* the temperature of the US is not the absolute indicator of whether global warming is happening or not.
You posted some 'Fun facts about carbon dioxide'; I gave you a scientific rebuttal of the points it tried to make.
So now you're saying that *I'm* not proving anything?
-
Speaking of fun facts I remember one of the guys on the left a year ago giving me that same statistic after I said that minor and unilateral changes by the United States couldn't make a difference. He said yes over the last 15 years the temperatures actually gone down!
WSS
-
Just found this, although the accent is terrible...
-
I just want to point out one thing to the alarmists. Notice that he has changed the premise when he mentions that one out of four Americans are skeptical and think that the effect of global warming may be exaggerated. Then he goes on to say that one out of four people deny man-made global warming exists at all which was not the question. One out of four believe set the reports are exaggerated. Do you, Chris or woody, believe that it's possible that many of these reports might be exaggerated? And we are talking about the predictions of long-term and short term damage. They have always been exaggerated up to now and I don't see any reason to think that will change.
That disingenuous style of reporting is what allows the skeptics to get a foothold. You guys really should try to understand that.
W
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
speaking of the accent where do you suppose he's from?
(regionally of course)
WSS
-
He's from Birmingham. I lived there for 4 years while at university - I used to love the place, but having moved to London, any time I go back there it seems to small.
To the point, yes, it's over the top journalism. But it does pretty much sum up how I feel about deniers, along with all those debates where it's represented as a 1-vs-1 opinion joust, where scientific views are split down the middle.
-
Oh, and, Bill Nye is cool
-
He's from Birmingham. I lived there for 4 years while at university - I used to love the place, but having moved to London, any time I go back there it seems to small.
To the point, yes, it's over the top journalism. But it does pretty much sum up how I feel about deniers, along with all those debates where it's represented as a 1-vs-1 opinion joust, where scientific views are split down the middle.
I'm just saying you've changed the debate. The point, to me, is not whether or not global warming exists or whether or not man has an effect. I'm sure both are true. How much damage will it cause, how soon will it happen, how much is directly related to mankind and how to solve it have often been exaggerated.He's from Birmingham. I lived there for 4 years while at university - I used to love the place, but having moved to London, any time I go back there it seems to small.
To the point, yes, it's over the top journalism. But it does pretty much sum up how I feel about deniers, along with all those debates where it's represented as a 1-vs-1 opinion joust, where scientific views are split down the middle.
WSS
-
There's no debate that it's happening, there's no debate that we're causing it to at least some degree. There should be debate about what we can do to stop it, followed by the adoption of policies putting those ideas in to plan as quickly as feasible.
-
There's no debate that it's happening, there's no debate that we're causing it to at least some degree. There should be debate about what we can do to stop it, followed by the adoption of policies putting those ideas in to plan as quickly as feasible.
There's no debate that it's happening, there's no debate that we're causing it to at least some degree.
And as long as you include the qualifier "at least to some degree" we have a consensus.
WSS
-
And as long as you include the qualifier "at least to some degree" we have a consensus.
WSS
Does it matter? If we agree it's happening, then regardless of the degree to which we've caused it, it's a concern for us and we should be doing something about it.
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