TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING ???

[Ronbo]

I think good old Al Gore should take a look outside and then
explain global warming again .... yea right burr it's even cold in
California as far as California weather goes.

Amen!!! The science and reality do not support the global warming theory

ronbo

[Bootie]

Show me your definitive facts to prove your statement about the cause of climate change. We already know the earth has been warming... tell us something we do not know. What is causing it? What are the facts to that?

If you would please...

Uh...exactly where did I give the cause of Climate Change? I don't remember writing anything about the cause. I did say that Climate Change is happening and you agreed. My main point is that you need to sample enough data so that you can make an intelligent statement about the problem. The original post implied, on the basis of the present cold snap, that Climate Change was a figment of Al Gore's imagination.

[mwkess]

Now I think I know the cause of global warming.

[Bootie]

Show me your definitive facts to prove your statement about the cause of climate change. We already know the earth has been warming... tell us something we do not know. What is causing it? What are the facts to that?

If you would please...

Check out this video. It pretty much puts the Climate Change arguments to rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

[jScotD]

[SNOOPY]

That was freaking awesome!



.

[Ed's Red Spyder]

Check out this video. It pretty much puts the Climate Change arguments to rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

After watching the video, his doom column was all Bullsh_t!, warming temps and increase co2 would mean more crops not dust bowls.
And remember "climate-gate in England, Mann's fake hockey stick, and the past 15 years of no warming trends, just a flat line in temp.

[Ed's Red Spyder]

LOVE IT!

[Dan_Ashley]

I taught statistics at the University of California, Riverside. I also taught several subjects in the MBA program. These are my observations on global warming.
1. The climate models used do not include the influence of clouds.
2. Climate scientists don't know how to model clouds. They think that maybe cloud formations are determined by cosmic ray flux. ( No joke.)
3. The margin of error for climate projections exceed the mean temperature growth by tens of degrees.
4. Termites make more greenhouse gasses worldwide than all of mankind's activities combined.
5. The use of statistics used to prove global warming is done in a completely unacceptable manner. Many errors in the development of the statistics exist. For example, here is just one: you can't take averages of numbers that are already averages.
6. They cannot explain why there has been no global warming in the last 17 years or so.
7. Just because observations seem to occur together, does not mean that one causes another. (Did you know that kids with bigger feet do better on IQ tests? That doesn't mean that big feet are a determinate of intelligence. Kids all take IQ tests at about the same time at school. They are not all the same age. Older kids do better on IQ tests, and have bigger feet).
8. The polar bear dying stories were completely fabricated.
9. The head researcher for Global Warming on theUN team had investments in a company which would profit from global warming laws. I do not remember if it was alternative energy or what industry though.
10. The primary data used by global warming adherents was destroyed. You have to use data that has been massaged, because the original data was destroyed--apparently by staffers who may have been employed by the College of East Anglia.
11. One of the reasons climate models predict similar outcomes is that they are all based on a single algorithm...which itself has not been tested.

edit: oh, by the way, the data for arctic ice only goes back to 1959... That's when the first satellite photos were taken. Moreover, there appears to be a magma pool heating the ground under the Greenland ice sheet--but I'm unsure of this last one.

[Ronbo]

[QUOTE=akspyderman;739896]I don't think one year makes a trend. It is warmer here than the lower 48. Summers have been trending warmer and the polar ice and glaciers are melting at a record pace. Some say the warming trend is causing the weird weather. Bigger tornados, hurricanes, wider spread storm fronts. Not a scientist here--but not willing to throw in the towel on global warming either. JMHO.[/QUOT3
i
I respect your opinion,especially yourwealthof knowledge about syders,but I don't buy global warming. Makes for a nice conversation though
ronbo

[GeoffCee]

The UK Meteorological Office has just announced that the UK this week "celebrates" a full 21 year trend of cooling temperatures. In the past the Green Lobby used to refer to it as "Global Warming" but now they call it "Climate Change".

The new name is a good strategy -- particularly as the Mediterranean Climate they were promising us 20 years ago disappointingly did not arrive. Personally, my priority was not to begin growing grapes but to enjoy a longer riding season on board my Spyder. Was it too much to expect?

[flybuddy]

Trying to discuss "facts" that are slanted and spun to support either contention will get you nowhere. This is simply another divisive political stance to support income redistribution while lining political pockets. Those that are running the carbon scheme get to set up their own stock market for carbon credits. Of course some of the huge profits made in brokering and speculating on these credits will filter back to supporting politicians to keep it going and expand it.
So the key question is--if there really is GW, will the carbon scam really do any good? Would it actually reduce usage and would that have any real effect on our climate? We've all seen the stats on natural sources of carbon. Would we simply be better off to try and improve our climate through science rather than political nonsense?

[Lamonster]

Looks like we one

[SNOOPY]

I'd move :tooCold:

[den1953]

The ozone hole, unlike global warming is very real and probably has everything to do with the summertime advance of sea ice around Antarctica. Those CFCs that were banned here are still being used in China and much of the developing nations of the world. The effects even if they were globally banned will take centuries to reverse themselves. The ozone layer acts as a protective blanket that not only stops harmful incoming radiation, but also traps outgoing radiation which is infrared or heat radiation. The North Pole is also in jeopardy of losing it's ozone cap, but the global warming people are letting this information fall through the cracks. Ice Age anyone??

[Bob Denman]

This is almost as much fun as arguing about helmets, guns, and oils put together!
Ultimately; what can we do about ANY of it?

[SNOOPY]

This is almost as much fun as arguing about helmets, guns, and oils put together!
Ultimately; what can we do about ANY of it?

.

[DragonSpyder]

Everyone seems to have an opinion on the subject. I want to know where the scientific studies are that disprove global warming. Your opinion does not trump peer reviewed scientific studies...

BTW - If you research it, the "scientific community" did NOT back the claims of the earth cooling years ago. It was only a couple scientists who made that claim yet we keep hearing it over an over.

[Bob Denman]

I just kind of dig the fact that the "tourists" who recently got stranded in the ice in Antarctica weren't tourists; they were scientists, that were there to study Global Warming ...

[Dan McNally]

I am always skeptical of articles that start out with: "Leading scientists say . . . " because "Leading scientists" are, in fact "funded scientists" and "funded scientists" get funding by saying what those in power want said, therefore "leading scientists" = "political parrots." Climate and weather are two different, although somewhat related, things. Here is some interesting reading that argues against man-made CO2 being the cause for climate change . . . http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/08/j...obvious-fraud/

[GeoffCee]

This is another thread where reason, scientific evidence and consensus will be overcome by those who, while unqualified to speak on the topic, will do so.
"

You are absolutely correct but is a qualification necessary before a thinking human being can be allowed to express a layman's opinion? There are examples throughout human history where learned experts working alone or in isolated cliques has lead to fundamental errors of judgement, errors which may have been mitigated had common sense from an unqualified outside source been heeded.
Just askin'.

[Bootie]

The UK Meteorological Office has just announced that the UK this week "celebrates" a full 21 year trend of cooling temperatures. In the past the Green Lobby used to refer to it as "Global Warming" but now they call it "Climate Change".

The new name is a good strategy -- particularly as the Mediterranean Climate they were promising us 20 years ago disappointingly did not arrive. Personally, my priority was not to begin growing grapes but to enjoy a longer riding season on board my Spyder. Was it too much to expect?

London is roughly the same latitude as Hudson Bay and should have the same temps if it were not for the Gulf Stream which brings warm water up from the equatorial regions. The melting Greenland Icesheet is expected to cut off the Gulf Stream conveyor which will result in COLDER temps in the UK. Seems like your observations about cooling temps in the UK fit right in with the Global Warming predictions. Congrats

[Bootie]

I taught statistics at the University of California, Riverside. I also taught several subjects in the MBA program. These are my observations on global warming.
edit: oh, by the way, the data for arctic ice only goes back to 1959... That's when the first satellite photos were taken. Moreover, there appears to be a magma pool heating the ground under the Greenland ice sheet--but I'm unsure of this last one.

By using the data from Ice Core Drilling, scientists can study the atmospheric conditions back 350,000 years. That's a little before 1959.

[Dan_Ashley]

You are absolutely correct but is a qualification necessary before a thinking human being can be allowed to express a layman's opinion? There are examples throughout human history where learned experts working alone or in isolated cliques has lead to fundamental errors of judgement, errors which may have been mitigated had common sense from an unqualified outside source been heeded.
Just askin'.

My opinion is not "a layman's opinion". See my post above. The people who use the data to prove global warming are not analyzing the data correctly. That is not a surprise. It is in their financial interest to behave the way they do. Remember the ads "Four out of five doctors recommend Chesterfield [cigarettes]?"
http://www.healthcare-administration...better-health/

If the studies cannot be duplicated by disinterested parties, if you can't have the original source data, or if margins of error and both the incidence of false positives and false negatives are not published, then you can pretty well bet that the conclusions are bogus. Few people remember the "scientific" support for eugenitics. This was the "science" that supported the actions of the Nazis during the holocaust.

If data does not support theory, then the theory is wrong. That is simple scientific method.

[SNOOPY]

By using the data from Ice Core Drilling, scientists can study the atmospheric conditions back 350,000 years. That's a little before 1959.

Personally, I think the earth is only 6,000 to 8,000 years old like the bible says, so the 350,000 years is one mans theory that is to be highly debated. Lol