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.
It was studied and debunked and the link was posted earlier in the thread at least twice. Even back then in the 70's the concensus amoung scientist was that the earth was warming.
Why of course, even though some of those scientists were thought to know what they were talking about then. Sure it was debunked when it didn't pan out. Sort of like areas of AGW are now.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/285600-global-warming-pie-chart-11.html#post7015867
What was studied was the claim that there was some kind of consensus in the 70's that we were heading into another Ice Age. The opposite was true as more scientist, in peer reviewed periodicals thought that the earth was warming. The denying crowd always bring that global cooling or new ice age crap from Time or Newsweek up, but are strangely silent when the truth come outs. They just slink away and post thier "But Scientist claim and Ice Age meme" somewhere else.
I guess the CIA thought the research was bogus too, huh?
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Talking about the consequences of the cooling climate as was being predicted
You gotta love it. And if our pro-AGW group here has the nerve to read that CIA report, they will note all the impressive scientific groups and studies that supported the theory that the current warm, beneficial climate of the mid 20th Century was reverting to the famine-producing cold typical of recent earlier centuries. That CIA report was dated 1974.
I guess the CIA thought the research was bogus too, huh?
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Talking about the consequences of the cooling climate as was being predicted
Well sense they got it wrong that means all science is wrong. It's so easy to be a conservative.
Well sense they got it wrong that means all science is wrong. It's so easy to be a conservative.
At least conservatives are capable of understanding that if a large segment of the scientific community got it wrong then, when there was ZERO economic or political motiviation for getting it 'wrong', then it at least merits a degree of concern that scientists a scant 40 years later might also be a bit off the mark.
And then add in the obvious that the large majority of scientists and scientific groups that are promoting AGW are profiting richly by advancing that theory, and it is reasonable to include industrial interests and our government who have strong political/economic motives for promoting the same theory.
And finally note that almost none--and I do mean almost NONE--of those preaching imminent disaster due to AGW are living lifestyles that indicate that they have any real concerns whatsoever.
I think us eeeeeeevul conservatives just might have a rational basis for reasonable healthy skepticism. Most especially when it is our liberties, choices, and opportunities that wll be sacrificed to the great gods of environmental zealotism.
Sorry Boo, temps have been flat for 20 ears.....sucks to think like you.
What does that mean exactly? Are you looking for an increase every year until it gets to boiling?
.Occam supports the declaration that what caused the warming in the past is also causing the warming today. In other words whatever is the easiest cause is also the most likely cause.
Bzzzzzzt. As expected, you failed hard at understanding Occam's Razor.
Occam's says the simplest theory THAT EXPLAINS THE OBSERVED DATA is most likely to be correct.
Among several other things, your cult's "it's a natural cycle!" explanation fails to explain:
-- the lack of any observable natural cause for this "natural cycle".
-- the observation of CO2 increasinglyl blocking outward IR flux.
Your theory does not explain the observed data, so Occam's doesn't apply. AGW theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data, hence Occam's supports it.
You fraudsters have had to alter the actual observed facts to correlate with your incredibly flawed computer models.
Even you know by now what a lying sack you are, but you don't care. You've sworn allegiance to your liars' cult, and hating liberals is now the only thing you care about. You're a hate-addict, so you'll justify anything that gets you your hate-fix.
Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.
Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.
The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.
Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.
More CO2 is being emitted yet temperatures have ceased rising for 20 years...
Oh, now it's 20 years. Westwall first claimed it was 10. That somehow became 16 and now 20.
Joe -
I don't think anyone really believes there has been a 20 year hiatus. It's just theatre. By next month people will be up to a 30 year hiatus.
What we know is the 2012 was the hottest year in American record, and the 9th hottest globally. That is some hiatus.
Sorry Boo, temps have been flat for 20 ears.....sucks to think like you.
What does that mean exactly? Are you looking for an increase every year until it gets to boiling?
.Occam supports the declaration that what caused the warming in the past is also causing the warming today. In other words whatever is the easiest cause is also the most likely cause.
Bzzzzzzt. As expected, you failed hard at understanding Occam's Razor.
Occam's says the simplest theory THAT EXPLAINS THE OBSERVED DATA is most likely to be correct.
Among several other things, your cult's "it's a natural cycle!" explanation fails to explain:
-- the lack of any observable natural cause for this "natural cycle".
-- the observation of CO2 increasinglyl blocking outward IR flux.
Your theory does not explain the observed data, so Occam's doesn't apply. AGW theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data, hence Occam's supports it.
You fraudsters have had to alter the actual observed facts to correlate with your incredibly flawed computer models.
Even you know by now what a lying sack you are, but you don't care. You've sworn allegiance to your liars' cult, and hating liberals is now the only thing you care about. You're a hate-addict, so you'll justify anything that gets you your hate-fix.
Occam's Razor applies in all things when there is no way to test the scientific theory. We have had satellite imaging for 33 years, not even a eyelash blink in the whole of the history of Earth. No honorable scientist I know would conclude that observing 33 years of satellite images or measurements of upper atmosphere temperatures proves a single thing re climate outside of those 33 years.
We have been using weather balloons and measuring CO2 levels at Mauna Loa for a little over a half century, still too short a period for any scientific conclusion outside of those years. Reliable temperature records on Earth have been kept for a little over 150 years. The only way we have to assess the paleontological record is via fossils and ice core samples and any conclusions drawn from that are based on very large blocks of time. And with no way to test it, scientists don't KNOW for sure what caused major climate change back then. The best they can do is conclude that it was due to sun spot activity, which we cannot control, or impact from large meteorites, or routine natural occurrences due to the wobble of the Earth's axis, seismic activity etc.
We can't build a dozen more Earths to test hypothesis of unusual influences that might affect this one.
More than a few scientists who have studied this conclude that man manipulated changes in water vapor due to release of steam, irrigation, deforestation, farming, etc. is a far more likely to affect the immediate climate than minute changes in CO2. But suggestions that farming and irrigation be ended wouldn't be too popular would it? And there aren't mega billions and trillions to be made suggesting that as is the case with those promoting the CO2 theory.
Honest science has to be something more than politically driven or based on peer review when the peers are the friends, associates, and colleagues of those producing the theories. Remember anybody with just a little bit of knowledge and a computer can produce a pretty graph or chart that will show just about any dang thing they want to show. And the gullible will just eat that up no questions asked. Makes it really easy to manipulate the great unwashed out there when there is incentive to do that.
Sorry Boo, temps have been flat for 20 ears.....sucks to think like you.
Bzzzzzzt. As expected, you failed hard at understanding Occam's Razor.
Occam's says the simplest theory THAT EXPLAINS THE OBSERVED DATA is most likely to be correct.
Among several other things, your cult's "it's a natural cycle!" explanation fails to explain:
-- the lack of any observable natural cause for this "natural cycle".
-- the observation of CO2 increasinglyl blocking outward IR flux.
Your theory does not explain the observed data, so Occam's doesn't apply. AGW theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data, hence Occam's supports it.
Even you know by now what a lying sack you are, but you don't care. You've sworn allegiance to your liars' cult, and hating liberals is now the only thing you care about. You're a hate-addict, so you'll justify anything that gets you your hate-fix.
Occam's Razor applies in all things when there is no way to test the scientific theory. We have had satellite imaging for 33 years, not even a eyelash blink in the whole of the history of Earth. No honorable scientist I know would conclude that observing 33 years of satellite images or measurements of upper atmosphere temperatures proves a single thing re climate outside of those 33 years.
We have been using weather balloons and measuring CO2 levels at Mauna Loa for a little over a half century, still too short a period for any scientific conclusion outside of those years. Reliable temperature records on Earth have been kept for a little over 150 years. The only way we have to assess the paleontological record is via fossils and ice core samples and any conclusions drawn from that are based on very large blocks of time. And with no way to test it, scientists don't KNOW for sure what caused major climate change back then. The best they can do is conclude that it was due to sun spot activity, which we cannot control, or impact from large meteorites, or routine natural occurrences due to the wobble of the Earth's axis, seismic activity etc.
We can't build a dozen more Earths to test hypothesis of unusual influences that might affect this one.
More than a few scientists who have studied this conclude that man manipulated changes in water vapor due to release of steam, irrigation, deforestation, farming, etc. is a far more likely to affect the immediate climate than minute changes in CO2. But suggestions that farming and irrigation be ended wouldn't be too popular would it? And there aren't mega billions and trillions to be made suggesting that as is the case with those promoting the CO2 theory.
Honest science has to be something more than politically driven or based on peer review when the peers are the friends, associates, and colleagues of those producing the theories. Remember anybody with just a little bit of knowledge and a computer can produce a pretty graph or chart that will show just about any dang thing they want to show. And the gullible will just eat that up no questions asked. Makes it really easy to manipulate the great unwashed out there when there is incentive to do that.
You are right that the gullible will not ask questions however science is all about questioning. Peer review means independent verification of the results. Scientists who cannot replicate claimed results are never shy to step forward and question the original claims. So while you are correct that current records that only go back 130 years are little more than eyeblink that is not the only available data. The ice core samples are accurate records that reach back thousands of years. The answer to climate change is not a single simple one. However we cannot ignore the problem because to do that would be to betray our own descendants. We do not own the earth. We merely hold it in custody for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them to leave it in better shape than we received it. Therein lies our duty irrespective of our personal beliefs.
Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
Occam's Razor applies in all things when there is no way to test the scientific theory. We have had satellite imaging for 33 years, not even a eyelash blink in the whole of the history of Earth. No honorable scientist I know would conclude that observing 33 years of satellite images or measurements of upper atmosphere temperatures proves a single thing re climate outside of those 33 years.
We have been using weather balloons and measuring CO2 levels at Mauna Loa for a little over a half century, still too short a period for any scientific conclusion outside of those years. Reliable temperature records on Earth have been kept for a little over 150 years. The only way we have to assess the paleontological record is via fossils and ice core samples and any conclusions drawn from that are based on very large blocks of time. And with no way to test it, scientists don't KNOW for sure what caused major climate change back then. The best they can do is conclude that it was due to sun spot activity, which we cannot control, or impact from large meteorites, or routine natural occurrences due to the wobble of the Earth's axis, seismic activity etc.
We can't build a dozen more Earths to test hypothesis of unusual influences that might affect this one.
More than a few scientists who have studied this conclude that man manipulated changes in water vapor due to release of steam, irrigation, deforestation, farming, etc. is a far more likely to affect the immediate climate than minute changes in CO2. But suggestions that farming and irrigation be ended wouldn't be too popular would it? And there aren't mega billions and trillions to be made suggesting that as is the case with those promoting the CO2 theory.
Honest science has to be something more than politically driven or based on peer review when the peers are the friends, associates, and colleagues of those producing the theories. Remember anybody with just a little bit of knowledge and a computer can produce a pretty graph or chart that will show just about any dang thing they want to show. And the gullible will just eat that up no questions asked. Makes it really easy to manipulate the great unwashed out there when there is incentive to do that.
You are right that the gullible will not ask questions however science is all about questioning. Peer review means independent verification of the results. Scientists who cannot replicate claimed results are never shy to step forward and question the original claims. So while you are correct that current records that only go back 130 years are little more than eyeblink that is not the only available data. The ice core samples are accurate records that reach back thousands of years. The answer to climate change is not a single simple one. However we cannot ignore the problem because to do that would be to betray our own descendants. We do not own the earth. We merely hold it in custody for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them to leave it in better shape than we received it. Therein lies our duty irrespective of our personal beliefs.
Peer review means independent verification of the results. Scientists who cannot replicate claimed results are never shy to step forward and question the original claims.
And then the warmists refuse to turn over their data. I wonder why they do that?
You are right that the gullible will not ask questions however science is all about questioning. Peer review means independent verification of the results. Scientists who cannot replicate claimed results are never shy to step forward and question the original claims. So while you are correct that current records that only go back 130 years are little more than eyeblink that is not the only available data. The ice core samples are accurate records that reach back thousands of years. The answer to climate change is not a single simple one. However we cannot ignore the problem because to do that would be to betray our own descendants. We do not own the earth. We merely hold it in custody for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them to leave it in better shape than we received it. Therein lies our duty irrespective of our personal beliefs.
Peer review means independent verification of the results. Scientists who cannot replicate claimed results are never shy to step forward and question the original claims.
And then the warmists refuse to turn over their data. I wonder why they do that?
Huh? I imported it myself a few years ago.
