Registered Conservative
Evidence of a warming trend in no way proves anthropogenic global warming. The Earth has been warming for the last 15,000 years since the last ice age ended, that is a fact. How is it they can prove human activity is "very likely" the driving force behind warming for the last 50? Its been warming for 15,000 years!Originally Posted by midcan5
PRAIRIE FIRE by William Ayers: Obama's guide to destory America
"Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution"--Joe Steel
You can't spell Liberals without Lies.
Banned
do you have an answer or not?
Senior Member
I would say you global warming nuts are full of shit, and more and more proof is coming out to prove it
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Banned
I would say you global warming nuts are full of shit, and more and more proof is coming out to prove it
so....you don't have an answer to my question. I understand. why not just say so?
Senior Member
More from the anti global waming crowd
Canadian Climatologist: Global Warming 'Fear Card' Being Used in U.S. Like 'Race Card'
By Noel Sheppard | February 14, 2007 - 13:58 ET
The name Timothy Ball should be familiar to many conservatives as one of the leading international skeptics of man’s role in global warming. He was interviewed recently by Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and once again made some fascinating statements about the media hysteria surrounding this issue (emphasis mine throughout):
As I tell audiences, the minute somebody starts saying “Oh, the children are going to die and the grandchildren are going to have no future,” they have now played the emotional and fear card. Just like in the U.S., it’s almost like the race card. It’s not to say that it isn’t valid in some cases. But the minute you play that card, you are now taking the issues and the debates out of the rational and logical and reasonable and sensible and calm into the emotional and hysterical.
As soon as people start saying something’s settled, it’s usually that they don’t want to talk about it anymore. They don’t want anybody to dig any deeper. It’s very, very far from settled. In fact, that’s the real problem. We haven’t been able to get all of the facts on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.
Ball elaborated:
[T]he report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it’s also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down.
They couldn’t do it by attacking energy because they know that would get the public’s back up very quickly. ... The vehicle they chose was CO2, because that’s the byproduct of industry and fossil-fuel burning, which of course drives the whole thing. They think, “If we can show that that is destroying the planet, then it allows us to control.” Unfortunately, you’ve got a bunch of scientists who have this political agenda as well, and they have effectively controlled the IPCC process
http://newsbusters.org/node/10828
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
High Desert
Scientists agreeing, scientists disagreeing, hmm in 1400 I wonder what the consensus by scientists of the earth rather than the sun being the center of the solar system?
Senior Member
I wish some damn CO2 would come my way. It is in the 50's here today and the breeze makes it feel like the 40's
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
Here is something the liberal media will ignore
AccuWeather Meteorologist Tells Obama to Can Gore as Environment Advisor
By Noel Sheppard | May 19, 2008 - 10:36 ET
Although Joe Bastardi is likely not a household name, most Americans probably know his face as one of the meteorologists interviewed whenever a serious climate event like a hurricane hits the mainland.
Despite such regular airtime, the senior AccuWeather.com meteorologist's open letter to presidential candidates concerning anthropogenic global warming will likely be thoroughly ignored by media far more interested in spreading the unproven junk science of Nobel Laureate Al Gore than advancing the discussion concerning this controversial issue.
This is especially true given Bastardi's suggestion that Obama "can [Gore] as an advisor on the environment."
for the letter and complete article
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...onment-advisor
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
.
good point. mfm's logical fallacy (FN1) attempts to wipe away the fact that a large number of scientist do not support the probable majority of scientists view concerning global warming. these scientist offered their signature, not ad numerum purposes, but to show that global warming is far from "fact" and still only a theory. they probably were persuaded to do this because so many global warming theorists act as if it is a fact.
FN1
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!
Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. ~Zen Buddhist Proverb
Member
It's 104 here today!
Member
And everyone knows how wonderfully infallible the UN is, after all, they've never made a mistake since the start of it. Exccept for Food for Oil, Kofe Annan, Congo peacekeepers, etc.
Most likely it's the freaking sun, which has been having a lot of solar activity lately. You remember the sun, it's that big yellow thing in the sky that WARMS the FUCKING planet! If it's putting out extra energy, stands to reason we would get a little warmer, don'tcha think?
Member
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:30 pm ET
20 March 2003
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.
In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.
"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today.
Willson said the Sun's possible influence has been largely ignored because it is so difficult to quantify over long periods.
Confounding efforts to determine the Sun's role is the fact that its energy output waxes and wanes every 11 years. This solar cycle, as it is called, reached maximum in the middle of 2000 and achieved a second peak in 2002. It is now ramping down toward a solar minimum that will arrive in about three years.
Connections
Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth. At solar max, Earth's thin upper atmosphere can see a doubling of temperature. It swells, and denser air can puff up to the region of space where the International Space Station orbits, causing increased drag on the ship and forcing more frequent boosts from space shuttles.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html
Super Minion
We're in the 40-60's all week. Brrrr!
Member
Bad part is we're supposed to be in the 80s by this weekend. I feel a cold coming on already.
Gunny's nightmare
Bastardi's one of the nations top weather scientist. If he says the debate ain't over, it ain't over. So sorry Al Gore.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote