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.
Depends on your definitions of the terms
No-no-no. If you don't know something - it is normal. But if you willingly "ignore" important facts, already known to you, to get a pre-determined result, it is cheating.Depends on your definitions of the terms
Sure ... this is called "semantics" ... you use whichever definition suits your opinion ...
"careless" observation and ignorance of important factors are incompatible with scientific method
Newton, Faraday, Einstein are all pseudoscientists ... very bold of you to say ... Planck, Hubble, Darwin ... the list goes on of preeminent folks who were ignorant of important factors ... all pseudoscientists you say ... maybe the problem is with your definitions ...
No-no-no. If you don't know something - it is normal. But if you willingly "ignore" important facts, already known to you, to get a pre-determined result, it is cheating.
I think the richest 350 million people, especially those living in urban or suburban neighborhoods could start here:What specifically do you want the people of planet earth to do to stop AGW? Give us a list of things that the 7 billion people of earth must do to save the planet from boiling.
Any theory has its own limitations. If we say "Newton's model is good to describe movement of all planets, exept Mercury" - it is normal. If AGW-supporters say that their "CO_2 only" models works only for Mars, it could be acceptable.No-no-no. If you don't know something - it is normal. But if you willingly "ignore" important facts, already known to you, to get a pre-determined result, it is cheating.
Sir Issac Newton ... everybody knew his Law of Gravity didn't work for the planet Mercury ... it was obvious and plain ... the matter was simply ignored, we wanted our predetermined results ... to you, this is well over 200 years of pseudoscience ... pseudoscience still in common use today ... GR is never used in climatology or meteorology, biology or sociology ... we ignore the proven fact that Newton was wrong, and everything based on Newtonian physics is pseudoscientific deception ...
ok boomer ...
No thanks. I'm not going to spend three times more on energy than I spend now.I think the richest 350 million people, especially those living in urban or suburban neighborhoods could start here:What specifically do you want the people of planet earth to do to stop AGW? Give us a list of things that the 7 billion people of earth must do to save the planet from boiling.
"2. Power your home with renewable energy.
Choose a utility company that generates at least half its power from wind or solar and has been certified by Green-e Energy, an organization that vets renewable energy options.
"If that isn’t possible for you, take a look at your electric bill; many utilities now list other ways to support renewable sources on their monthly statements and websites.
3. Weatherize, weatherize, weatherize.
"'Building heating and cooling are among the biggest uses of energy,' Haq says. Indeed, heating and air-conditioning account for almost half of home energy use.
"You can make your space more energy efficient by sealing drafts and ensuring it’s adequately insulated. You can also claim federal tax credits for many energy-efficiency home improvements."
How You Can Stop Global Warming
Of course, the biggest offender isn't even in the discussion for most Americans.
The Pentagon's Climate Impact Is a Threat to Our Planet
Banks caused the Great Recession.Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.
that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws
Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.
Any theory has its own limitations. If we say "Newton's model is good to describe movement of all planets, exept Mercury" - it is normal. If AGW-supporters say that their "CO_2 only" models works only for Mars, it could be acceptable.
The Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and it's the only cause of the great depression. Financial firms acting recklessly, breakdowns in corporate governance, excessive borrowing and risk by households are all as old as money. Why should all these errors occur at the same time? The answer is the Federal Reserve.Banks caused the Great Recession.Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.
that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws
Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.
How many bankers went to prison?
Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia
"The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011.
"It concluded that 'the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.'"[3]
"According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."
Banks caused the Great Recession.Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.
that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws
Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.
How many bankers went to prison?
Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia
"The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011.
"It concluded that 'the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.'"[3]
"According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."
The Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and it's the only cause of the great depression.The Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and it's the only cause of the great depression. Financial firms acting recklessly, breakdowns in corporate governance, excessive borrowing and risk by households are all as old as money. Why should all these errors occur at the same time? The answer is the Federal Reserve.Banks caused the Great Recession.Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.
that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws
Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.
How many bankers went to prison?
Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia
"The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011.
"It concluded that 'the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.'"[3]
"According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."
How would you (or Rush) explain this global temperature spike over the past fifty years?
Who told you that, Dude?Geez guy...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the natural factors that effect the climate.
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010So go to that link and bring back some observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability
"Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.
"The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4"
Link?as I pointed out, termites alone produce more CO2 than all of humanity
"A meme shared hundreds of times in multiple posts on Facebook and Twitter claims that termites produce 10 times more carbon dioxide than humans in a single year.
"The claim is false; scientists estimate termites’ carbon emissions are approximately one-tenth of those created by humans."
It’s the other way around -- termites produce approximately one-tenth of the carbon dioxide emissions created by humans
Agree or not?
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
Why do you say 66.4% expressed no opinion ... and then say 97.1% endorse ... are you including "no opinion" as affirmatives? ...Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscienceWhy do you say 66.4% expressed no opinion ... and then say 97.1% endorse ... are you including "no opinion" as affirmatives? ..
If I'm interpreting this source correctly of 11,944 peer reviewed climate abstracts published between 1991-2011, 66.4% expressed no opinion on AGW.
32.6% endorsed AGW and 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Of the 33.6% of abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
If those numbers reflect 2020 reality, it makes this claim by NASA appear misleading, at least?
Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
Ok. You say, that there is the "stupid" AGW-theory, and "smart" AGW-theory, so there are some questions:Any theory has its own limitations. If we say "Newton's model is good to describe movement of all planets, exept Mercury" - it is normal. If AGW-supporters say that their "CO_2 only" models works only for Mars, it could be acceptable.
More semantics ... tiresome ...
First you're talking about AGW theory ... now all of a sudden it's AGW models ... and now we're not talking about the science, but rather the (uneducated) "supporters" of AGW ... if you want to condemn the stupidity of what some people think AGW theory says, I'm on your side ... but there is an actual scientific theory that tries to explain man-kind's roll in climate, and it covers much much more than CO2 emissions ...
No one thinks AGW theory is perfect as currently stated ... as new research gets published, old ideas are changed, new ideas are added ... the matter is evolving as we type to each other ... I know, The National Enquirer doesn't publish this, try finding different sources for your climate research news ...
In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.
Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.
Ok. You say, that there is the "stupid" AGW-theory, and "smart" AGW-theory, so there are some questions:Any theory has its own limitations. If we say "Newton's model is good to describe movement of all planets, exept Mercury" - it is normal. If AGW-supporters say that their "CO_2 only" models works only for Mars, it could be acceptable.
More semantics ... tiresome ...
First you're talking about AGW theory ... now all of a sudden it's AGW models ... and now we're not talking about the science, but rather the (uneducated) "supporters" of AGW ... if you want to condemn the stupidity of what some people think AGW theory says, I'm on your side ... but there is an actual scientific theory that tries to explain man-kind's roll in climate, and it covers much much more than CO2 emissions ...
No one thinks AGW theory is perfect as currently stated ... as new research gets published, old ideas are changed, new ideas are added ... the matter is evolving as we type to each other ... I know, The National Enquirer doesn't publish this, try finding different sources for your climate research news ...
1. Pls, show us a "smart" AWG-model, which include data about water vapour, clouds, farming, forestation/deforestation, fertilizers, fishing, whaling, Milancovich periods, volcanic eruptions and so on.
2. Why environmentalists preffer to demonstrate "stupidity", not "smartness"?
3. Why politics, industry and ordinary citisens must act accordind delibirate stupidity, at least, basing on those incomplete models?
4. Can you (or anybody else) "guarantee" that there will be no big volcanic erruption this year, with further "year(s) without summer" and "global cooling"?
5. Isn't it better to make ourselves better prepared to any climate change, rather than try to stop unstopable?
