Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes to all that an in addition, the claim Sinatra brings once again as fact is only a mere prediction.
Real scientific.
The main complaint I have with the climate goofs these days is that their feeling that if the data don't fit the model, then the data have to be changed, rather than the model. Sinatra and I just have the anti scientific idea that if the model and the data don't agree, it is the model that needs to be changed, rather than the data.
Once again, show where this is the case? Ever bother to actualy read what real scientists are saying? At the AGU Conferance a lot of scientists showed much data and evidence. Have you even bothered to review what was said?
All too many people here that seem otherwise intelligent seem to desire to ignore reality to the point of making themselves seem among the willfully ignorant.
No, actually that is what I have been saying all along.
And yes increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% does warm the earth.
That is a scientific fact.
No. It's not. It's still JUST a theory. And it is not an especially compelling theory, either.
Only compelling enough that all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that it is a fact.
But fucking dummies that cannot accept reality do not accept it. Which changes the reality not one whit.
It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.
Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.
With the ice gone, the heat is being absorbed by the dark ocean, which is up to 7 miles thick, which means a temperature increase will take time. Since heat is not being reflected back into the atmosphere, it seems colder, but over time, with the ocean absorbing the heat, the planet heating up will be more apparent. Conservatives just assume you take some kind of temperature indicator outside and "take a temperature". For them, it's just that simple. Everything is "just that simple".
Now for conservatives, considering their lack of interest in anything that involves data or proof, it's no wonder they don't "believe". To them the entire world is a "belief". If you believe it, it's true. Doesn't matter the facts. Look at their foreign policy. Nothing has happened the way they "believed it should have happened. Rather than question their "beliefs", they just assume others are wrong, no matter the evidence. Some describe that as "delusional".
Even some scientists that were once on this absurd bandwagon have jumped shit because they dont want to be associated with fcukking k00ks.............
No, actually that is what I have been saying all along.
And yes increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% does warm the earth.
That is a scientific fact.
No. It's not. It's still JUST a theory. And it is not an especially compelling theory, either.
Only compelling enough that all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that it is a fact.
But fucking dummies that cannot accept reality do not accept it. Which changes the reality not one whit.
No. It's not. It's still JUST a theory. And it is not an especially compelling theory, either.
Only compelling enough that all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that it is a fact.
But fucking dummies that cannot accept reality do not accept it. Which changes the reality not one whit.
The vaunted scientific consensus you cite doesn't actually mean jack shit, of course. Between being "based" on falsified and deliberately distorted data, and the fact that real science is not at all dependent on "consensus" in the first place, I am always amused by your religious devotion and abiding faith in "science." You remain the fucking dummy, Olde Fossil, but you are too fucking much of a dummy to glean that fact.
Care to back that up? Just 'cause Chrissy says so doesn't count.CO2 causes the earth to warm within the context of the Sun's activity.
How hard is that to understand?
I don't mis understand your point, I just don't agree with it.
Asserting it to be so does not make it so.
If it were the case that an n% increase in resulted in a change of y% in temperature, then I could give the idea credit. But what the climate folks have not been able to do is demonstrate that correlation. Carbon has not increased that much as a percentage, the percentage has been mostly flat over the years and they want us to believe that a very small change in carbon (Which is a very small portion of the earth's atmosphere anyway) is supposed to cause a huge change in temperature. And the change in temperature does not track the change in carbon.
It does track the change in solar activity very well though. Which is what skeptics have been saying all along.
No, actually that is what I have been saying all along.
And yes increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% does warm the earth.
That is a scientific fact.
Who's trying to install global fascism to save the polar bears again?The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, so we should expect a cold winter.
The effect of CO2 is always within the context of the Sun's activity.
But the right will ignore any fact to make a political point.
Well, Seig Heil to you too, sport.It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.
Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.
With the ice gone, the heat is being absorbed by the dark ocean, which is up to 7 miles thick, which means a temperature increase will take time. Since heat is not being reflected back into the atmosphere, it seems colder, but over time, with the ocean absorbing the heat, the planet heating up will be more apparent. Conservatives just assume you take some kind of temperature indicator outside and "take a temperature". For them, it's just that simple. Everything is "just that simple".
Now for conservatives, considering their lack of interest in anything that involves data or proof, it's no wonder they don't "believe". To them the entire world is a "belief". If you believe it, it's true. Doesn't matter the facts. Look at their foreign policy. Nothing has happened the way they "believed it should have happened. Rather than question their "beliefs", they just assume others are wrong, no matter the evidence. Some describe that as "delusional".
You make assumptions that are not based in fact.
Just because someone feels Global Warming [MMGW] is a hoax it doesn't mean they don't care about the planet. We don't have to believe the same nonsense to show proper concern.
Anybody that cannot look at the evidence and data and see that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger is not intelligent enough, or is so driven by ideology, that their opinions on any matters is suspect.
Who's trying to install global fascism to save the polar bears again?The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, so we should expect a cold winter.
The effect of CO2 is always within the context of the Sun's activity.
But the right will ignore any fact to make a political point.
mmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.
mmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.
You mean like the ones who have been LYING about it for 13+ years?
How about all the ones who predicted that we'd be in an ice age by now in the 1970's. Or the Population Bomb? Or Mass Starvation? Or that we'd be out of oil in 1980?
Please. You have just as much attachment to 'fantasy' as you accuse anybody who believes in the Bible.
Sanctimonious hypocrite.
Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
You're wrong already.Let me get this right. The everything gets colder on the planet, ...
mmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.
You mean like the ones who have been LYING about it for 13+ years?
How about all the ones who predicted that we'd be in an ice age by now in the 1970's. Or the Population Bomb? Or Mass Starvation? Or that we'd be out of oil in 1980?
Please. You have just as much attachment to 'fantasy' as you accuse anybody who believes in the Bible.
Sanctimonious hypocrite.
mmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.
You mean like the ones who have been LYING about it for 13+ years?
How about all the ones who predicted that we'd be in an ice age by now in the 1970's. Or the Population Bomb? Or Mass Starvation? Or that we'd be out of oil in 1980?
Please. You have just as much attachment to 'fantasy' as you accuse anybody who believes in the Bible.
Sanctimonious hypocrite.
Ice age? Link? Oh, you mean when they first started studying Global Warming?
The ones who have been lying? Does that mean all of them lied? No? What percentage? 50%, 30%, 0.000002%?
Out of oil in 1980? Well, we are idiot child, that's why we buy foreign oil. Duh! Middle Eastern Oil isn't ours.
------------------------
'Double food output to stop world starving,' say scientists - Science, News - The Independent
They cite the original green revolution of the 1960s when new crop varieties, greater use of agro-chemicals, and a change in farming practices led to a dramatic increase in food production: it leapt from 1.84 billion tonnes in 1961 to 4.38 billion tonnes in 2007. But scientists accept that this increase came at great environmental cost, and the Royal Society report warns that a second green revolution has to be based on a sustainable increase in global food production without a significant expansion in the area of land turned over to farming.
-------------------------
It was scientists who stopped mass starvation, NOT Bible thumpers. Actually, it's the Bible thumpers who have added to the problem.
Jesus, do you guys have to "practice" dumb? That much dumb can't possibly be "natural".
Hmmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.
On the other, you have Republicans who believe "Noah's Ark" was a historical event and the earth is only a few thousand years old. People who believe science is a religion and evolution is a lie.
Who to believe? Wow, that's a hard one. Look that the choices. It's really difficult knowing who to believe.
Care to back that up? Just 'cause Chrissy says so doesn't count.I don't mis understand your point, I just don't agree with it.
Asserting it to be so does not make it so.
If it were the case that an n% increase in resulted in a change of y% in temperature, then I could give the idea credit. But what the climate folks have not been able to do is demonstrate that correlation. Carbon has not increased that much as a percentage, the percentage has been mostly flat over the years and they want us to believe that a very small change in carbon (Which is a very small portion of the earth's atmosphere anyway) is supposed to cause a huge change in temperature. And the change in temperature does not track the change in carbon.
It does track the change in solar activity very well though. Which is what skeptics have been saying all along.
No, actually that is what I have been saying all along.
And yes increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% does warm the earth.
That is a scientific fact.
