always knew global warming was a hoax

Quote: kp

Decades? Is that long enough to do accurate trending?
That's like projecting the next roulette spin by looking at the last 30 numbers that hit.

Bingo! You are correct, the sample size is too small to be considered statistically relevant. Then, in order to make the sample size larger, they rely on tree ring samples, ice core samples etc, and then attempt to estimate the trends back even further.

No doubt "global warming" is a hoax, but ...

... I'm going to Vegas this week and weekend, and SHIT, I can't wait to get out of this Texas heat and into the nice Vegas weather!

Oh, non-scientists, the article in Forbes is very biased. If you read the actual publication in Remote Sensing (which is linked to the Forbes article), the conclusion is substantially different than the Forbes article, which uses the word "alarmist" 14 times.

For the opposing viewpoints by actual climate scientists, read (link to Discover Magazine blog).

"If you simply accept what they say without doing due diligence, you may be led down a road that leads well away from reality."

Quote: boymimbo

"If you simply accept what they say without doing due diligence, you may be led down a road that leads well away from reality."

True, that.

Follow the money
Forbes prints an article by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute. Heartland is funded in part by the Olin, Bradley and Walmart foundations. One of the Bradley brothers was a co-founder of the John Birch Society. The CEO of the Bradley Foundation was the campaign director for Scott Walker, the current Governor of Wisconsin. Come to your own conclusion as how much "science" is being reported in this article.

The global warming or "climate change" argument is really a simple one.

- Man is adding carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere (true) through cow farts and the burning of fossil fuels.
- Adding Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere has some effect to the global radiation equation which can be and has been scientifically proven. Without any other effects, adding Carbon Dioxide to any normal mix of air has the effect of trapping more heat. That has been proven.
- The total effect of the other effects cannot be easily determined because the earth is very very complex.

For example, the increase of carbon dioxide may increase cloud cover, which cools the earth. The ocean is a gigantic carbon sink, but the addition of carbon dioxide to the ocean appears to be killing coral.

I'm a strong believer in progress, and I don't think we should stop burning fossil fuels to impede our progress. That said, what is the harm of moving to other forms of energy that probably do not have an impact on the future state of the planet.

Quote: boymimbo

I'm a strong believer in progress, and I don't think we should stop burning fossil fuels to impede our progress. That said, what is the harm of moving to other forms of energy that probably do not have an impact on the future state of the planet.

To this day the cheapest forms of energy are fossil fuels. Not just gas and diessel for cars and trucks, but coal, oil and natural gas for power plants. Hydroelectic power is cheap and fairly reliable, but requires a huge capital investmant, and of course it won't work just anywhere. Everything else is either very unreliable, expensive, over-regulated or all of these

Nobel prize winner quits American Physical Society over its stance on "incontrovertible" global warming.

I know some of us on this forum don't trust FoxNews, but surprisingly, given the influence the climate change point is trying to exercise over our liberties, I couldn't find this pretty big climate story anywhere else. And, if you read it, it's not the kind of article that can be slanted.

Anyway, all that to say ... again ... global warming is far from "settled science," and the side that wants to shut debate is the side that believes in it. Or, I suppose that this Nobel prize winner is just simply an idiot.

Between this, the Solyndra scandal, the (as yet non-existent but like Obamacare we have to pass it before we know what's in it) new stimulus jobs package, Obama is becoming reprobate to the point where anyone who supports him (as opposed to just opposing the Republican candidate) has to be viewed with suspicion. Even Enron wasn't this ham-handed. The guy may be smart, but he seems to think that the rest of the world are idiots. (Which is, ironically, a very stupid assumption.)

But don't worry. MSNBC.com proudly displays its banner about the weirdness of college football uniforms, so the liberal community will at least know what the Maryland flag looks like.

Here is my problem with the "global warming crowd"......Is it true that adding methane and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere traps heat an warms the earth? Of course it is....only someone with an IQ over 10 would deny this....but to what degree? They dont know this..but yet they make claims like they do.....The earth has gone through many warming cooling cycles....for to many reasons to list....currently the earth is getting warmer. No one is denying this...BUT...to what extent is mans carbon footprint playing in this?....Is it responsible for 2% of the current warming or 99%......the tree huggers would say 99% and...and the fossil fuel industry would probably say 2%...who is right? NO BODY KNOWS.....

But of course if you say its only responsible for 5% or 10% of the current warming then you dont get grant money....and you have to go out in the real world and find a job like the rest of us......So of course you are gonna say it responsible for 99% of the current warming....YOUR WHOLE DAMN CAREER IS BUILT ON THESE CLAIMS.....It amazes me that so many damn hippies can point out how bankers and "wall streeters" will do anything for money BUT.....think that scientist wont LOL....

It's not Global warming anymore. It's Climate Change.