always knew global warming was a hoax
1) If it is posted on worldtruth.tv as being true....it is most likely a hoax.
2) If it is something that would be posted on worldtruth.tv [but isn't posted there [yet]]....it is most likely a hoax.
3) Check snopes.com
It would do something like say "The best time to bet on 12 in craps is the very first roll, because the first time 12 is rolled is more likely to be on the first roll than the second." But they would fail to mention the fact that 12 is equally likely to be rolled on the first roll as the second as the 100'th roll. Using that logic, they would do some other spin-off math. And using that, they'd come up with something like "12 is the most likely roll of the dice"...and they'd have their "math" to back it up.
The onion would just post something ridiculous without any attempt at hiding their (obvious) lies.
Quote: AZDuffmanWell, based on the name-calling I must be winning the discussion. And yet more proof that liberals look at most things just in one dimension.
An inconvenient truth is that 97% of CO2 is generated by non-human sources!
Are you really expecting me to believe that a 3% difference is going to Cause gasoline to be $9 and milk $12.99/gal each by June 8, 2015?
If the Left (the ones pulling the levers like Soros brothers and the Clintons not the deluded brainwashed sheep like the ones here) really believed there own bullshit they would be calling for the immediate return to the horse and buggy pre-industrial days.
It's just another "issue" to cluck about like Chicken Little that "the sea's are rising and it's all the Republicans fault!"
Just like "voter suppression" in a country where it's never been easier to vote. We just had a national election and in a country with 320 million people the kleptocrats can't put one person on a stage whose vote was "suppressed". Meanwhile Canada and Mexico have truly strict voter ID laws and the left doesn't squeak about them. Guess Mexico is anti-Mexican.
Quote: 24BingoWater is necessary for all life... let's add enough to raise sea levels by 80 meters (a piddling 3% increase!) and see what happens.
Well my parents have lived 3 miles from the Atlantic for 85 years and if you ask them if the ocean has come up even an inch in that time they will tell you to your face that you are f****** nuts.
Quote: AZDuffmanWell, based on the name-calling I must be winning the discussion. And yet more proof that liberals look at most things just in one dimension.
An inconvenient truth is that 97% of CO2 is generated by non-human sources!
How is this 3% fact relevant to changes in the balance and concentration of atmospheric carbon? I agree that animals exhaling and dying releases carbon into the biosphere. Plants (and some fungi) also naturally absorb carbon. However, the ability of the Earth to absorb carbon hasn't increased, which means that human contributions - both through reducing absoprtion capabilities through deforestation and pollution, and through greater atmospheric release - have created an atmospheric surplus. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is at 403.24 ppm (last week).
Quote: bobsimsWell my parents have lived 3 miles from the Atlantic for 85 years and if you ask them if the ocean has come up even an inch in that time they will tell you to your face that you are f****** nuts.
Do your parents have a gauge, or are they just really good at measuring average sea level? Or are they just really good at calling people f(stars) nuts?
Scientists perhaps should consult your parents, or they could continue to consult instruments that take measurements:
Quote:The tide gauge in Key West, in operation since 1913, has registered an increase of about seven-eighths of an inch every decade, for a 100-year increase of 8.8 inches.
Source: http://interactive.sun-sentinel.com/rising-seas/ocean.html
Quote: harvson3
How is this 3% fact relevant to changes in the balance and concentration of atmospheric carbon? I agree that animals exhaling and dying releases carbon into the biosphere. Plants (and some fungi) also naturally absorb carbon. However, the ability of the Earth to absorb carbon hasn't increased, which means that human contributions - both through reducing absoprtion capabilities through deforestation and pollution, and through greater atmospheric release - have created an atmospheric surplus. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is at 403.24 ppm (last week).
If all liberals committed suicide immediately, would it stop, or at least slow Global Warming? Oops, my bad, it's called Climate Change now.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/04/28/fox_news_global_warming_versus_climate_change.html
Actual quote from the memo:
`1) "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.'
Slate, as usual, is lazy and incorrect. The scientists at the controlling agency, NASA, show that the scientists' usage predates Luntz by more than a quarter century, and those are the folks who think that they rule:Quote: harvson3it was political strategist Frank Luntz who pushed Republicans to start using "climate change" in lieu of "global warming" in a famous 2002 memo titled "Straight Talk." http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/04/28/fox_news_global_warming_versus_climate_change.html
"What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change
12.05.08
The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?
To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1
Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?
For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.
The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible." NASA
Quote: harvson3
How is this 3% fact relevant to changes in the balance and concentration of atmospheric carbon? I agree that animals exhaling and dying releases carbon into the biosphere. Plants (and some fungi) also naturally absorb carbon. However, the ability of the Earth to absorb carbon hasn't increased, which means that human contributions - both through reducing absoprtion capabilities through deforestation and pollution, and through greater atmospheric release - have created an atmospheric surplus. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is at 403.24 ppm (last week).
It is relevant because it shows that we are talking about a minimal difference in CO2. The average low information voter is thinking that we have doubled, tripled, or worse to CO2. I am informed and when I heard this number, I had guessed 10% or so. 3% on an entire planet? That is a really small number. Who is to say that things are in such perfect balance that said 3% can't easily be processed?
Of course, if you bring this up and use your own mind to question what you are told you get the usual chant of "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!" from the believers.
Quote: 24BingoI love this argument. "I know better than people who think CO2 has tripled, and I know better than that hippie who told me there was going to be an ice age in the 70s, so I know better than every scientist who's not on Exxon's payroll!"
One of the great things about getting older is that you no longer believe hype because you have heard it all before. This is a major reason why people over 50 face a harder time getting many jobs, they will simply not fall for the empty motivation their boss will dole out.
I have said it here before. I learned in about 9th grade science that you cannot have a good result if you have faulty or incomplete data. GW science has incomplete data in that they are projecting all of this with unbelievably limited temperature measurements. 150 years at most in developed countries, far less in most countries, and perhaps 35-40 for the majority of the planet that is covered by ocean.
So same as I am not believing the commercial for Ginsu Knives I see during "Hogan's Heroes" this week because I saw the same one in the 1970s, I am not believing those preaching their global warming religion because I have seen the same thing since the 1970s.
Quote: AZDuffmanOne of the great things about getting older is that you no longer believe hype because you have heard it all before. This is a major reason why people over 50 face a harder time getting many jobs, they will simply not fall for the empty motivation their boss will dole out.
...
So same as I am not believing the commercial for Ginsu Knives I see during "Hogan's Heroes" this week because I saw the same one in the 1970s, I am not believing those preaching their global warming religion because I have seen the same thing since the 1970s.
Funny. The last person to use this spiel on me was trying to convince me of the wisdom of homeopathy.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have said it here before. I learned in about 9th grade science that you cannot have a good result if you have faulty or incomplete data.
And I learned in 9th grade science that electrons look like tiny moons. When the overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with something taught in 9th grade science, I don't usually find the right answer to lie in 9th grade science.
Not that I believe for a second you were actually taught that. Oh, faulty data, sure. But "incomplete" data? Unless you're Laplace's demon, data is "incomplete" by its very nature. I'm trying to find a definition of "incomplete data" that would even make sense, but all I'm actually coming up with is in the context of corrupted files. So, naturally, having slipped an ill-defined rider into the GIGO principle, you proceed to talk about nothing but that rider for the rest of the paragraph.
Quote: AZDuffmanGW science has incomplete data in that they are projecting all of this with unbelievably limited temperature measurements. 150 years at most in developed countries, far less in most countries, and perhaps 35-40 for the majority of the planet that is covered by ocean.
So what? No, genuinely, so what? I was about to write a snarky comment on in what year the laws of nature were redrawn, but then you'd just shout "LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS!" again so let's not. You play scientist for a bit. By which I don't mean just don the labcoat and doff it after a single bon mot, but get up to that whiteboard and get from point A, we only have 150 years of direct observation, to point B, the greenhouse hypothesis is invalid. I'm sure the fact that we've only been watching a fortieth of the Earth's history in any detail sounds like a mic drop to you, but in those years have been indications of less ephemeral measures, and those measures all tell the same story, and the predictions made by that story have, in broad strokes, come true. Now, I have some idea what you're going to say to that, so go ahead, provided that, bearing in mind flukes are inevitable, your response covers a proportionate sample of climatologists' predictions, not just one study that was wrong, and certainly not something from some blowhard like... well, you know who.
Quote: 24BingoI love this argument. "I know better than people who think CO2 has tripled, and I know better than that hippie who told me there was going to be an ice age in the 70s, so I know better than every scientist who's not on Exxon's payroll!"
The American Geophysical Union Conference is sponsored in part by Exxonmobil, BP, and Chevron. Does that make them corrupt or unreliable? Or does that only apply to *some* scientists? What exactly do you mean by "on Exxon's payroll"? Does that mean anyone that's ever accepted money from them?
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/general-information/thank-you-to-our-sponsors/
Quote: 24Bingo
So what? No, genuinely, so what? I was about to write a snarky comment on in what year the laws of nature were redrawn, but then you'd just shout "LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS!" again so let's not. You play scientist for a bit. By which I don't mean just don the labcoat and doff it after a single bon mot, but get up to that whiteboard and get from point A, we only have 150 years of direct observation, to point B, the greenhouse hypothesis is invalid. I'm sure the fact that we've only been watching a fortieth of the Earth's history in any detail sounds like a mic drop to you, but in those years have been indications of less ephemeral measures, and those measures all tell the same story, and the predictions made by that story have, in broad strokes, come true. Now, I have some idea what you're going to say to that, so go ahead, provided that, bearing in mind flukes are inevitable, your response covers a proportionate sample of climatologists' predictions, not just one study that was wrong, and certainly not something from some blowhard like... well, you know who.
Hmm, 1/40 of Earth's history is 113 million years, give or take a few million. Man has only been on earth for about 100,000 of those. In fact, man has only been here 0.002% of the life of the earth. If the entire history of the world was compressed into one year, humans would not show up until mid-day on New Years Eve. The time we have records for would maybe cover the period the ball drops in Times Square.
It is how I have been saying, the whole GW thing is as if you looked at a one-hour chart of GM and projected how the stock was going to do for the next year.
GW is a religion, the believers listen to the Al Gores and Prince Charles' of the movement who tell them we are facing disaster as they live in mansions, fly private jets, and let their SUVs idle during their speeches lest they be too hot to get into when they are finished. This is little different than the Bakers who lived a life of luxury from their Televangilist followers who sent them money to "do good." They tell beg politicians to raise their taxes and take away their freedoms in the name of the earth. They shout down those who try to point out all the logical faults with their "SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS" line as they have none of their own thought. They, as I keep saying, might as well be shouting "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!"
Quote: AZDuffmanHmm, 1/40 of Earth's history is 113 million years, give or take a few million. Man has only been on earth for about 100,000 of those. In fact, man has only been here 0.002% of the life of the earth. If the entire history of the world was compressed into one year, humans would not show up until mid-day on New Years Eve. The time we have records for would maybe cover the period the ball drops in Times Square.
[Kiwi] Were you there? [/Kiwi] No, really, were you? Or do you know someone who was? Or, rather, do you accept the age of the Earth based only on the observations done in this tiny window? Well, in that case, do you not see how ridiculous it is to say "this evidence is meaningless due to this fact we only know therefrom"?
Not that that matters much, since as usual your argument as to how this makes anything at all invalid begins and ends with "look, so tiny!"
Quote: AZDuffmanGW is a religion, the believers listen to the Al Gores and Prince Charles' of the movement who tell them we are facing disaster as they live in mansions, fly private jets, and let their SUVs idle during their speeches lest they be too hot to get into when they are finished. This is little different than the Bakers who lived a life of luxury from their Televangilist followers who sent them money to "do good."
That would only even work as an analogy if you thought shady televangelists were sufficient reason to utterly reject Christianity, even in the face of evidence. Not even I think that, and I know you don't. Even if the analogy made sense, though, it somehow seems to be, for all those supposedly blindly following him, that only your kind ever mention Al Gore. (And I don't know why the hell you've even brought up Prince Charles.)
Quote: AZDuffmanThey tell beg politicians to raise their taxes and take away their freedoms in the name of the earth. They shout down those who try to point out all the logical faults with their "SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS" line as they have none of their own thought.
Inventing thoughts unfettered by reality is not a virtue. Listen to the scientists and, if you think you have something to say, respond. So far, the closest thing to an argument you've expressed has been various forms of "look at this big number and this small one" and "look what you'd have won on the match just then," and even these are mostly buried under a thick sauce of "it's a religion" and "it's a conspiracy" (a fine blend of Marxist and money-grubbing), with a light sprinkle of "I know the state of science in the seventies better than journals do because hippies." If you have this low an opinion of science, why not take a nice trip to the moon?
Quote: 24Bingo
Not that that matters much, since as usual your argument as to how this makes anything at all invalid begins and ends with "look, so tiny!"
It is called "valid sample size." Look it up, it involves science! More math, actually.
Quote:Even if the analogy made sense, though, it somehow seems to be, for all those supposedly blindly following him, that only your kind ever mention Al Gore. (And I don't know why the hell you've even brought up Prince Charles.)
Google "Prince Charles and Global Warming." He is just as big a hack as Gore is on the matter.
If you have this low an opinion of science, why not take a nice trip to the moon?
Maybe if they need a first Recorder of Deeds and have a good poker room for my time off.
Quote: 24BingoI don't need to look it up to know that one of the first things I learned about valid sample size is that it doesn't in most circumstances depend on population size. 150 years would tell us scarcely less about a planet created by Ben Franklin than about a four-billion-year-old one. I'm amazed your ninth grade science teacher forgot to mention that.
So what you are saying then is that you can use a 1 hour chart of GM to perform a valid technical analysis for the last year? Because that is what you are saying.
EDIT: Or rather, what I should have said was that a one-hour sample wouldn't be any better with a ten-year-old company than with a hundred-year-old one - nor would a three-month sample.
Quote: 24BingoNo. What I'm saying is that a one-hour sample wouldn't be any better on a much younger world.
So in other words, 150 years wouldn't be any good on this planet, correct?
Sort of like finding a "biased" dice cube and extrapolating that to all dice in all casinos in, say, Las Vegas.Quote: AZDuffmanSo what you are saying then is that you can use a 1 hour chart of GM to perform a valid technical analysis for the last year?
Quote: 24BingoIt would be no worse on this planet than it would be on a much younger one. The point is that you have to come up with a reason why it's not sufficient, one better than "but it's such a small fraction!"
Fine. The reason why is that climate trends on Earth have tended to last hundreds to thousands of years. Therefore, measuring only 150 years would historically not give a long enough data stream to show an irreversible trend.
If you like, we can also discuss how there is no control planet we can use to isolate differences in solar output or other factors from outer-space.
Quote: AZDuffmanFine. The reason why is that climate trends on Earth have tended to last hundreds to thousands of years. Therefore, measuring only 150 years would historically not give a long enough data stream to show an irreversible trend.
[Kiwi] How do you know? [/Kiwi] You're accepting conclusions about the past drawn from modern data right up to the nanosecond you hear something you don't like. That's ridiculous, but it wouldn't necessarily make you wrong. What makes you wrong is that modern observations coincide with hypotheses drawn from indicators of Earth's past history. The conclusion comes not just from our present, but also our past.
Though there is a kernel of truth there: the reversibility of climate change is considerably more an open question than its human origin for something like that reason, since nothing quite like this has ever happened (since it is clear industrial times are unique in Earth's history). Still, that's not a reason to play Russian Roulette with the clathrate gun.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you like, we can also discuss how there is no control planet we can use to isolate differences in solar output or other factors from outer-space.
As you keep reminding me, we have four billion years of control to show the uniqueness of our time. The demand for a "control planet" is the equivalent of demanding a pharmaceutical study give its new drug to aliens.
Quote: 24Bingo
As you keep reminding me, we have four billion years of control to show the uniqueness of our time. The demand for a "control planet" is the equivalent of demanding a pharmaceutical study give its new drug to aliens.
Uh, no. We have 4 billion years of history. For a control we would need a planet with no human activity as well as our own to determine what happens when the sun changes at the same time. You see, if the sun changed 10,000 years ago and the earth was in a different state than it is now then that data cannot really be said to be a control.
It matters not, because we do not have reliable data pre-1800s. Even then we did not measure most of the surface that is under the oceans. It is as if we check out a Hemi V-8 and say the compression is good even though we only checked cylinders 1 and 3.
And back to the "we can't say anything about the world before 1800!" Again, you can't use geological timescales as a talking point and reject all data about the past.
Quote: 24bingoAs you keep reminding me, we have four billion years of control to show the uniqueness of our time.
You were doing so well up until this.
Quote: 24Bingo
And back to the "we can't say anything about the world before 1800!" Again, you can't use geological timescales as a talking point and reject all data about the past.
Actually, I can. We know there were cooler and warmer periods. But we do not know how much cooler or how much warmer. When you want to convince be that a 1C change will mean the end of the world you had better be able to measure to within 1C. This cannot be done.
BTW: It isn't even 1800, more like 1850s when they started keeping records in the USA. Even that is faulty since the monitoring stations have moved over the years.
The Center for Biological Diversity (a bunch of lawyers posing as environmentalists that make a ton of money suing the government) has petitioned the EPA to list CO2 as a toxic substance under the Toxic Substance Control Act so it can be regulated.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/ocean_acidification/pdfs/Petition_OA_TSCA.pdf
I suppose that would mean the EPA could regulate our breathing.
Headline: You're making this island disappear.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/06/opinions/sutter-two-degrees-marshall-islands/
Quote: PBguySince fearmongering hasn't worked the alarmists have taken a page out of the religion playbook and are trying guilt.
Headline: You're making this island disappear.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/06/opinions/sutter-two-degrees-marshall-islands/
Global Warming IS a religion. An opiate for atheists.
Don't throw the past away
You might need it some rainy day
Dreams can come true again
When everything old is new again
I thought the science was settled? Where is the warming part of global warming?
One of my liberal buddies says, "Cold temps are proof of global warming."
Wow, just wow!
Quote: HowManyHey warmers- when is global warming going to arrive in Ohio? Our winters are brutally cold, and I'm often wearing a jacket in the summer when I should be sweating my ass off.
I thought the science was settled? Where is the warming part of global warming?
One of my liberal buddies says, "Cold temps are proof of global warming."
Wow, just wow!
The argument it's cold therefore global warming is false is an argument on the level of scientific illiteracy normally reserved for people who claim the earth is the center of the universe or people who say dogs only beget dogs therefore there is no such thing as evolution.
The global average temperature has been going up this is well documented and the fact you had to wear a jacket doesn't suddenly disprove that.
Quote: TwirdmanThe argument it's cold therefore global warming is false is an argument on the level of scientific illiteracy normally reserved for people who claim the earth is the center of the universe or people who say dogs only beget dogs therefore there is no such thing as evolution.
The global average temperature has been going up this is well documented and the fact you had to wear a jacket doesn't suddenly disprove that.
Then isn't the opposite true, the argument that bad weather "happened" so it must be GW related? We see that all the time.
Quote: AZDuffmanThen isn't the opposite true, the argument that bad weather "happened" so it must be GW related? We see that all the time.
I lean left, I believe in GW.
I am a bike commuter except in bad weather.
I don't believe my bad weather is related to GW.
What scares me being in Florida is GW melting more ice then normal in the poles.
Nobody (including every scientist on the planet) knows if a particular major weather event is due to GW. Where do you get these wack ideas from you attribute to the left. Stop listening to the wackos.
Rising sea due to melting ice, that is the big problem we are facing.
To ease such propaganda-driven fears:Quote: terapinedWhat scares me being in Florida is GW melting more ice then normal in the poles.
"Source:
University of Texas at Austin
Summary:
New ground measurements suggest the rate of ice loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been slightly overestimated. For the first time, researchers have directly measured the vertical motion of the bedrock at sites across West Antarctica using GPS. The results will lead to more accurate estimates of ice mass loss. science daily
and
"Our surveys indicate that the floes are much thicker and more deformed than reported by most drilling and ship-based measurements of Antarctic sea ice. We suggest that thick ice in the near-coastal and interior pack may be under-represented in existing in situ assessments of Antarctic sea ice and hence, on average, Antarctic sea ice may be thicker than previously thought." nature
Quote: AZDuffmanThen isn't the opposite true, the argument that bad weather "happened" so it must be GW related? We see that all the time.
Yep and those people are also morons. Anyone who says bad weather X happened therefore global warming is definitely true is an idiot. That is why you see that clap trap on pop news media and not in actual proper scientific reporting. You do see statistical examinations of the severity and frequency of certain bad weather events and people look at whether that is evidence of global warming, but that is a far cry from saying I had to wear a jacket so there is no global warming or I was sweating a lot today therefore there is global warming.
Quote: AZDuffmanThen isn't the opposite true, the argument that bad weather "happened" so it must be GW related? We see that all the time.
I agree, only a moron would say that bad weather "must" be related to GW.
Why is it with conservatives that listen the fringe morons on the left and post these absurd views?
Dont listen to the fringe wackos on the left. They are insane. They dont represent liberal views,
I am smart enough to not listen to the westboro baptist church on the fringe right because they dont represent christian conservatives.
Fringe wackos on the right do not represent the religious conservatives.
Quote: terapinedI agree, only a moron would say that bad weather "must" be related to GW.
Why is it with conservatives that listen the fringe morons on the left and post these absurd views?
Dont listen to the fringe wackos on the left. They are insane. They dont represent liberal views,
I am smart enough to not listen to the westboro baptist church on the fringe right because they dont represent christian conservatives.
Fringe wackos on the right do not represent the religious conservatives.
They quote the fringe as if it were representative of the whole because it furthers their agenda. It's as simple as that. The left did the same, here and there, with whack jobs like Glenn Beck (or the Westboro Baptists, or the doctor-killers, or...on and on), but the right's better at repudiating and distancing themselves from those, and the left lets them do it. The right does not return the favor.
Quote: AZDuffmanScientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet!
Don't throw the past away
You might need it some rainy day
Dreams can come true again
When everything old is new again
This is interesting yet for anyone that has paid attention to solar cycle predictions it's obvious that the existing models have VERY little, if any, skill. This current solar cycle was predicted to be huge and instead it's relatively small. I don't have a lot of faith that this new model will prove any more accurate. Still a lot to learn about the sun.
Today will make 33 consecutive days. Today's high temp 76 degrees, average is 85 degrees.
33 in a row! What are the odds?
A candidate with commom sense
"I know I'm not a scientist, but here's the problem I've got with some people in my party: When you ask the scientists what's going on, why don't you believe them? If I went to 10 doctors and nine said, "Hey, you're gonna die," and one says "You're fine," why would I believe the one guy? So there you go."
Quote: TwirdmanYep and those people are also morons. Anyone who says bad weather X happened therefore global warming is definitely true is an idiot.
I agree!
SEATTLE (AP) - President Barack Obama says a wildfire that has burned nearly 400 square miles in the north-central part of Washington state, along with blazes in other Western areas, can be attributed to climate change.
Quote: AZDuffman
Here is the actual quote
"A lot of it has to do with drought, a lot of it has to do with changing precipitation patterns and a lot of that has to do with climate change"
I admit its partially wrong.
Drought, ok
changing precipitation patterns ok
Climate change maybe
Obama is partially wrong, Lindsey Graham is right on the money.
From Lindsey regarding climate change.
I know I'm not a scientist, but here's the problem I've got with some people in my party: When you ask the scientists what's going on, why don't you believe them? If I went to 10 doctors and nine said, "Hey, you're gonna die," and one says "You're fine," why would I believe the one guy? So there you go."
Quote: terapinedQuote: AZDuffman
Here is the actual quote
"A lot of it has to do with drought, a lot of it has to do with changing precipitation patterns and a lot of that has to do with climate change"
I admit its partially wrong.
Drought, ok
changing precipitation patterns ok
Climate change maybe
The thing is this, precipitation patterns have ALWAYS been changing. In the late 1800s many believed "rain follows the plow" as to farming in the great plains. They were "right" because that area saw years of good precipitation. Until the Dust Bowl.
When you read the quote, you need to understand what is being communicated. As we all know, Obama is incapable of talking off a teleprompter. The quote was massaged so as not to directly say "GLOBAL WARMING!" To use the liberal's famous term, it is a "dog whistle" to the enviro left.
Obama one year said he was "concerned" about spring coming early. Now, anyone over the age of 20 who lived in the north knows sometimes spring comes early and sometimes not. We base Groundhog Day around it. But again, he puts out the whistle.
As to Graham, cute quote. It, however, is not "believing" the scientists who are so-called deniers. It is that once you turn 30 and even more 40 you are not as taken in by fads. You think back to the global-cooling talk and say, "I've seen this movie before. The butler did it."
Quote: terapinedQuote: AZDuffman
Here is the actual quote
"A lot of it has to do with drought, a lot of it has to do with changing precipitation patterns and a lot of that has to do with climate change"
I admit its partially wrong.
Drought, ok
changing precipitation patterns ok
Climate change maybe
Obama is partially wrong, Lindsey Graham is right on the money.
From Lindsey regarding climate change.
I know I'm not a scientist, but here's the problem I've got with some people in my party: When you ask the scientists what's going on, why don't you believe them? If I went to 10 doctors and nine said, "Hey, you're gonna die," and one says "You're fine," why would I believe the one guy? So there you go."
So are you proposing we go back to horses and buggy's?
No-you know it's all bull***.
Your party had complete power in 2009 and did NOTHING on "global warming". So now we're all going to drown in 10 years. Or 10 million years more likely. Meanwhile in Miami Beach developers keep spending billions on new construction and insurers keep insuring them.
The odor of manure permeates the air.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: terapinedQuote: AZDuffman
Here is the actual quote
"A lot of it has to do with drought, a lot of it has to do with changing precipitation patterns and a lot of that has to do with climate change"
I admit its partially wrong.
Drought, ok
changing precipitation patterns ok
Climate change maybe
The thing is this, precipitation patterns have ALWAYS been changing. In the late 1800s many believed "rain follows the plow" as to farming in the great plains. They were "right" because that area saw years of good precipitation. Until the Dust Bowl.
When you read the quote, you need to understand what is being communicated. As we all know, Obama is incapable of talking off a teleprompter. The quote was massaged so as not to directly say "GLOBAL WARMING!" To use the liberal's famous term, it is a "dog whistle" to the enviro left.
Obama one year said he was "concerned" about spring coming early. Now, anyone over the age of 20 who lived in the north knows sometimes spring comes early and sometimes not. We base Groundhog Day around it. But again, he puts out the whistle.
As to Graham, cute quote. It, however, is not "believing" the scientists who are so-called deniers. It is that once you turn 30 and even more 40 you are not as taken in by fads. You think back to the global-cooling talk and say, "I've seen this movie before. The butler did it."
You keep bringing up global-cooling talk as though it was a major scientific consensus back then or even something significantly brought up. There was a Times article about how it might be happening and a few scientific articles talking about how the world might be cooling or the world might be warming, with even then more articles talking about global warming compared to global cooling, 44 compared to 7 in the period 1965-1979. Perhaps if you got your information from legitimate scientific journals or reputable scientific news writers rather than pop news magazines like News Week or the Times you would see that global warming is the consensus.
You are welcome to your down home folksy wisdom, but being old doesn't make you wise or sagely it just makes you old.
Quote: Twirdman
You keep bringing up global-cooling talk as though it was a major scientific consensus back then or even something significantly brought up. There was a Times article about how it might be happening and a few scientific articles talking about how the world might be cooling or the world might be warming, with even then more articles talking about global warming compared to global cooling, 44 compared to 7 in the period 1965-1979. Perhaps if you got your information from legitimate scientific journals or reputable scientific news writers rather than pop news magazines like News Week or the Times you would see that global warming is the consensus.
You are welcome to your down home folksy wisdom, but being old doesn't make you wise or sagely it just makes you old.
I'll take being old any day. As to "consensus" what I see is a bunch of scientists that get loads of cash for going with the flow. I will continue to use my own judgment rather than listen to the fear tactics. For 30 years now I have heard we have 10 years to act, yet temps are still stable to falling.
Sheep flock, sheep get slaughtered.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs to "consensus" what I see is a bunch of scientists that get loads of cash for going with the flow. I will continue to use my own judgment rather than listen to the fear tactics. For 30 years now I have heard we have 10 years to act, yet temps are still stable to falling.
B-I-N-G-O.
