Jump to content
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Good bye El Nino?

Recommended Posts

pogobob

Can I say creator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Dean, do you really expect 7 inches to be noticeable to you? Wait, it's not 7, it's not even 3 inches. What's your point anyway? I gave you some metrics that I considered valid, and my point was that with the exception of the glaciers and the permafrost, the rest of the stuff is barely measurable as of right now.

Yes Axel - that is exactly what I said, and why I said it. One inch in a swimming pool is noticeable - especially when one inch will cause it to overflow. And that is exactly the situation I was trying to describe - a unique but enlightening one. A three inch rise in sea level from the 1970 level would have completely covered the sidewalk in front of my old house during each monthly high tide - but it hasn't happened yet - it needs at least another 2 inches.

BTW - I found the paper from where your stats of 197mm of sea level rise since 1870 originated. And it is a paper constantly quoted by Mats and other proponents in the SkepticalScience website, and from where I obtained it. And its graph shows about 3 1/2 inches since 1970 due to the accepted accelerating rate.

Here is a quote from that paper. It is a paper supportive of the global warming crowd. But, if you bother to read it, you will notice that it is rife with attempts to explain the inconsistencies in much of the data when compared to observations. http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

there is likely to be an ongoing wastage of the Greenland ice sheet, leading to a significant rise in the global average sea level of up to several metres. The time scale over which this could occur is disputed. The processes included in the present generation of ice-sheet models lead to time scales of a millennium or two (Huybrechts and de Wolde 1999), whereas others (Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006; Hansen 2007) have emphasised the fast dynamic responses of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, implying a sea- level rise of over a metre from ice sheets alone during the 21st century.

Please tell me why we never hear about the "present generation of ice-sheet models" from this paper that tell us it may take 2000 years for this significant sea level rise to materialize. Why is it that you, the press, and the politicians only use and quote models that predict it will happen this century??? I guess "Sea Level To Rise Several Meters This Century" grabs more attention than "Sea Levels to Rise Several Meters in 2000 Years."

This just emphasizes the point I have tried to make. The slow global warming that seems to be taking place is being grossly exaggerated by those who would stand to benefit with an acceptance of such an exaggerated scenario. When someone keeps sceaming doom and gloom and tells me they can save me (for a price), I get suspicious. I see it all the time in the stock market - the "coming crash" and what to do about it - buy my book, then hire me to manage your money. These "experts" are a dime a dozen, and consistently wrong. But the doom and gloom continues to sell.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtlevine

Dean you know the answer to the question. Just like my logarithmic relationship of temps and co2 is not mentioned, even if its in the IPCC report. CO2 is the blood of life itself and the pinheads are calling it a pollutant that will destroy us, go figure. In life there are a few leaders and a whole lot of followers. The whacky left is the big flock of sheep that will follow their leaders right over the cliff and try to drag us over with them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Dean, you might want to read this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

Gavin Schmidt investigated the claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station. But what about global sea level rise?

Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. As well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments, sea level rise corroborates other evidence of global warming

The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places.

Because sea level behavior is such an important signal for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice how for a short period of time you cancreate almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points farther apart. Notice that as your selected data points cover more time, the more your mini-graph reflects the big picture. The lesson? Always look at all the data, don't be fooled by selective presentations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Axel,

As I said - I'm not sitting at a desk sifting through data and charting graphs and points with equations and postulations, while I collect my pay check. For curiousity's sake, I just check the sea level every 10 years at a place I know like the back of my hand. What a concept. It doesn't prove anything, but it sure makes me more skeptical.

I remember during the occasional super high tides every few years, all us who lived on the bay front would sit on our patios and discuss how screwed all the houses there would be in 50 years. Well it's been almost 50 years. And I'll bet you the people that live there now are carrying on the same conversations that we did. And the next generation will do the same.

So, the question is - will it take 100 years or 2000 years. Or will something unforeseeable or unpredictable happen first?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtlevine

And since the earth naturally is in a warming period, how much of the sea level rise is the cause of the man made portion of warming, if you believe the climate change crowd? The problem is there is no possible way to prove man made global warming with computer modeling, its too complex, even if it is theoretically possible. Like Dean said, is it two hundred years or two thousand? Can we have any practical effect anyway? How do we know if cutting 50% of our CO2 output would do anything? We would never know. The people here a thousand years from now could not know if their climate was better because we got rid of 1/2 our CO2 output and all our cows. Axel, just step back a minute and look at it. Even if you believe in man made warming, can you honestly come to any conclusion different than mine? The developed nations are already pretty clean, its the third world that needs to clean their industry. Our politicians know this, so why is Obama and the left giving us the full press to cut even more CO2? He is not stupid, he knows it will do nothing noticeable, which means it is as i stated, a redistribution of wealth and a power grab, nothing more.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Gary - I always wondered if these advocates of a government engineered "solution" believe the data strongly enough to be willing to have 10% taken from their present income to pay for higher priced gasoline, electricity, and the overall cost of all goods produced.

Taking the steps some would like to take will certainly not be without costs. And any estimates that are floating around should be doubled or tripled since that is par for the course when it comes to government estimates.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad

oh boy! i would love to talk religion but i wont as we are lucky enough to talk about GW without it getting shut down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PALM MOD

I guess it was only a matter of time before religion would enter the discussion - again. This may sound like a fine point, but I allowed the mention of "creator" since it was a small "c." In my lexicon, right or wrong, that can mean several things.

But please, let's keep the religious aspects of a supreme being (or beings) out of the discussion - if you wish to see it continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

I still just want to know if the Southeast is going to see a repeat of last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Palmaceae

I still just want to know if the Southeast is going to see a repeat of last year.

David,

If you believe the Farmers Almanac then it does not look to good for us. But things can change, you can't always believe the weather forecasters as they can barely get the daily forecast right. And that is not a slam against weather forecasters, it is very hard to accurately forecast weather. Sure the farmers almanac is accurate to a certain extent but things can and will change. So I claim it will be a nice warm winter for all, that's my forecast ;-) That's my hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

"The public knows that humans are fallible. Only people blinded by ideology fall into the trap of believing in their own infallibility".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Palmaceae

"The public knows that humans are fallible. Only people blinded by ideology fall into the trap of believing in their own infallibility".

I can also quote Freeman Dyson,

"Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science."

"The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm"

"I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain"
There is nothing wrong with hope, all we can do is see what the weather will do this winter and hope for the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

"The public knows that humans are fallible. Only people blinded by ideology fall into the trap of believing in their own infallibility".

I can also quote Freeman Dyson,

"Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science."

"The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm"

"I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain"

There is nothing wrong with hope, all we can do is see what the weather will do this winter and hope for the best.

That's a very good quote. We should all consider both quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtlevine

Axel i believe we are actually getting on the same page. Although at this point i dont see man made global warming a concern, and most likely non existent, i am a man of science, and as with all science, i am willing to change my opinion if the evidence warrants it. The thing about this global warming debate is the hysteria of it, and how the people forget science except that which supports their political ideology. It is not by accident that this theory is supported and pushed virtually 100% from one ideological point of view. When someone says the science is settled, or calls people global warming deniers, those people are ignorant and purely driven by ideology. Those are the people that when confronted with science that does not support their position, they google that author to try and discredit them instead of the science. So those of us that are independant thinkers must not give in to the herd. We must ban together and fight them, then defeat them before they destroy all of us. Those people are flat out dangerous because they will support tyranny.

Edited by Gtlevine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Axel i believe we are actually getting on the same page. Although at this point i dont see man made global warming a concern, and most likely non existent, i am a man of science, and as with all science, i am willing to change my opinion if the evidence warrants it. The thing about this global warming debate is the hysteria of it, and how the people forget science except that which supports their political ideology. It is not by accident that this theory is supported and pushed virtually 100% from one ideological point of view. When someone says the science is settled, or calls people global warming deniers, those people are ignorant and purely driven by ideology. Those are the people that when confronted with science that does not support their position, they google that author to try and discredit them instead of the science. So those of us that are independant thinkers must not give in to the herd. We must ban together and fight them, then defeat them before they destroy all of us. Those people are flat out dangerous because they will support tyranny.

Gary, I agree.

But when I read a lot of what you posted before (except this above), a lot of it sounds motivated from a political perspective as well. It would be great as you say if folks actually looked at the facts. Seems like few people do, instead, people just pull the party line for whatever side they're on. That makes talking about any of the science uninteresting.

I am interested in the science behind any of the predictions. I am not subscribing to any ideology, either pro or con. Call me a climate agnostic if you like, a healthy dose of skepticism is great, a closed mind is not so useful. Genuine curiosity makes for better discussion, dogma just creates dry and dull discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad

Global warming, global cooling or none of the above. In the end we will all most likely be wiped out by another meteorite before anyone figures out if were to blame anyway. If I remember right there's going to be a massive meteor pass between us and the moon In the next year. Then it comes back around in 7 more years with a slightly different angle. Meteors don't seem to care about co2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

I always try and "reverse engineer" peoples arguments ..... for instance ....what is the solution to the problem and is it an actual workable or feasible solution. So many people argue if there actually is a problem....well that is a mute point if the solution either doesn't work or is worse than the problem itself.

There are so many other better reasons to move to sustainable energy and to clean up our world.

I may not be a Geologist but i do have a degree in Environmental/Oceanographic Science (with almost 10 years of actual experience in airborne pollutants)and Master in Business. The only reason I say this is because others always throw their credentials around and claim that others don't look at the science. Well I say I don't have to look at the science ..... I think looking at the logical/political/economic factors yield a much more rounded and realistic approach to the subject.

My conclusion is that global governments and business use (and fund) the Climate Change scientist to convince populations to give up money and power. Climate scientist are just pawns in a larger game of chess.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

An article popped in my news feed today with this graphic. I cropped it to remove the political poop. And this is a small part of the article. I'll leave it to you guys to fact check, but I thought it was interesting in light of this conversation.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

post-1207-0-38509200-1409515955_thumb.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

An article popped in my news feed today with this graphic. I cropped it to remove the political poop. And this is a small part of the article. I'll leave it to you guys to fact check, but I thought it was interesting in light of this conversation.

Deniers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

An article popped in my news feed today with this graphic. I cropped it to remove the political poop. And this is a small part of the article. I'll leave it to you guys to fact check, but I thought it was interesting in light of this conversation.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that while the long-term trend still shows a decline last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

This is just proof that this debate is utterly useless because no one actually reads the sciene, they just regurgitate party lines. If you had read some of the other comments in any of the GW debates, you'd know that the volume of the ice is relevant, not the surface area. The more the ice melts, the bigger the surface area will be thanks to the decrease in salinity. In other words, the increase in surface area coupled with a decrease in thickness is actually a warming signal.

Less salinity means less cold required to induce freezing.

Goes to prove my point and Garys point. GW is just an emotional debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

An article popped in my news feed today with this graphic. I cropped it to remove the political poop. And this is a small part of the article. I'll leave it to you guys to fact check, but I thought it was interesting in light of this conversation.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that while the long-term trend still shows a decline last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

This is just proof that this debate is utterly useless because no one actually reads the sciene, they just regurgitate party lines. If you had read some of the other comments in any of the GW debates, you'd know that the volume of the ice is relevant, not the surface area. The more the ice melts, the bigger the surface area will be thanks to the decrease in salinity. In other words, the increase in surface area coupled with a decrease in thickness is actually a warming signal.

Less salinity means less cold required to induce freezing.

Goes to prove my point and Garys point. GW is just an emotional debate

I haven't read all of the other comments or the science, nor do I care to. It popped on my newsfeed so I shared it, and as stated "I'll leave it to you guys to fact check" and argue about, too.

I prefer to read history over science, so here is my opinion on this subject and all related matters. Man has been on the planet, what 200,000 years or so? I think mankind has managed to survive a whole lot more in that time than this piddly little climate change that will last about as long as hydrocarbon abundance, maybe another hundreds more years at best. Then what?

And impact on the planet, give me a break. This planet started our molten and will end up frozen. Nothing along the way will change that, especially our existence in the blink of an eye in that period of time.

This argument, like many others before it, is simply mankind's total infatuation with itself and its impact on this planet. Narcissism at its finest. We have been moving people and cities around to accommodate nature since the beginning. Mankind is afraid of only one thing, inconvenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose

97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

There is a part of that quote that always remains unsaid. Let me rephrase it in a way that I think makes it more accurate.

"97% of working climate scientists, who receive government funding in some form or other, agree with the administration's view that human beings are causing global warming, and also agree that government needs more tax money and regulatory power to fund even more research and reverse the process."

All the sources from your "Source" - are assuredly receiving government funding in some form or other - if they are not an outright government agency: (Name one of the following that you think doesn't receive government funding)

So there's this huge, global conspiracy involving all those scientific organizations around the world and their member climatologists and not one of them has broken ranks and spilled the beans? Do you really believe that?

"There actually is a conspiracy surrounding climate change, and it's not what you'll hear from most conspiracy theorists: between 2003 and 2010, more than $7 billion were spent by conservative billionaires to fund anti-Anti Global Warming organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Follow the money, indeed." source

Read what Wikipedia and Rational Wiki have to say about your supposed global warming conspiracy theory.

Where is all the peer reviewed literature that refutes the theory of anthropogenic climate change? If your side has a case, where's the evidence?

Rush Limbaugh says that Global Warming is a hoax. Now that's an expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

An article popped in my news feed today with this graphic. I cropped it to remove the political poop. And this is a small part of the article. I'll leave it to you guys to fact check, but I thought it was interesting in light of this conversation.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that while the long-term trend still shows a decline last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

This is just proof that this debate is utterly useless because no one actually reads the sciene, they just regurgitate party lines. If you had read some of the other comments in any of the GW debates, you'd know that the volume of the ice is relevant, not the surface area. The more the ice melts, the bigger the surface area will be thanks to the decrease in salinity. In other words, the increase in surface area coupled with a decrease in thickness is actually a warming signal.

Less salinity means less cold required to induce freezing.

Goes to prove my point and Garys point. GW is just an emotional debate

I haven't read all of the other comments or the science, nor do I care to. It popped on my newsfeed so I shared it, and as stated "I'll leave it to you guys to fact check" and argue about, too.

I prefer to read history over science, so here is my opinion on this subject and all related matters. Man has been on the planet, what 200,000 years or so? I think mankind has managed to survive a whole lot more in that time than this piddly little climate change that will last about as long as hydrocarbon abundance, maybe another hundreds more years at best. Then what?

And impact on the planet, give me a break. This planet started our molten and will end up frozen. Nothing along the way will change that, especially our existence in the blink of an eye in that period of time.

This argument, like many others before it, is simply mankind's total infatuation with itself and its impact on this planet. Narcissism at its finest. We have been moving people and cities around to accommodate nature since the beginning. Mankind is afraid of only one thing, inconvenience.

I like that argument, the stuff based on history, that is. But the idea that the planet will end up frozen is not correct. The earth started out molten and will end up molten. The sun is a white dwarf star, and About 5 billion years from now, the hydrogen fuel in the center of the Sun will begin to run out and the helium that has collected there will begin to gravitationally contract, increasing the rate of hydrogen burning in a shell surrounding the core. The sun will slowly bloat into a red giant, and in the process it will engulf the inner planets, including the Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

There is a part of that quote that always remains unsaid. Let me rephrase it in a way that I think makes it more accurate.

"97% of working climate scientists, who receive government funding in some form or other, agree with the administration's view that human beings are causing global warming, and also agree that government needs more tax money and regulatory power to fund even more research and reverse the process."

All the sources from your "Source" - are assuredly receiving government funding in some form or other - if they are not an outright government agency: (Name one of the following that you think doesn't receive government funding)

So there's this huge, global conspiracy involving all those scientific organizations around the world and their member climatologists and not one of them has broken ranks and spilled the beans? Do you really believe that?

"There actually is a conspiracy surrounding climate change, and it's not what you'll hear from most conspiracy theorists: between 2003 and 2010, more than $7 billion were spent by conservative billionaires to fund anti-Anti Global Warming organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Follow the money, indeed." source

Read what Wikipedia and Rational Wiki have to say about your supposed global warming conspiracy theory.

Where is all the peer reviewed literature that refutes the theory of anthropogenic climate change? If your side has a case, where's the evidence?

Rush Limbaugh says that Global Warming is a hoax. Now that's an expert.

John Stewart says that global warming is for real, now that's an expect.

BTW, you're not allowed to post about religion - that means you are not allowed to talk about Global Warming, only about global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LJG

An article popped in my news feed today with this graphic. I cropped it to remove the political poop. And this is a small part of the article. I'll leave it to you guys to fact check, but I thought it was interesting in light of this conversation.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that while the long-term trend still shows a decline last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years an impressive 43 per cent.Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

This is just proof that this debate is utterly useless because no one actually reads the sciene, they just regurgitate party lines. If you had read some of the other comments in any of the GW debates, you'd know that the volume of the ice is relevant, not the surface area. The more the ice melts, the bigger the surface area will be thanks to the decrease in salinity. In other words, the increase in surface area coupled with a decrease in thickness is actually a warming signal.

Less salinity means less cold required to induce freezing.

Goes to prove my point and Garys point. GW is just an emotional debate

I haven't read all of the other comments or the science, nor do I care to. It popped on my newsfeed so I shared it, and as stated "I'll leave it to you guys to fact check" and argue about, too.

I prefer to read history over science, so here is my opinion on this subject and all related matters. Man has been on the planet, what 200,000 years or so? I think mankind has managed to survive a whole lot more in that time than this piddly little climate change that will last about as long as hydrocarbon abundance, maybe another hundreds more years at best. Then what?

And impact on the planet, give me a break. This planet started our molten and will end up frozen. Nothing along the way will change that, especially our existence in the blink of an eye in that period of time.

This argument, like many others before it, is simply mankind's total infatuation with itself and its impact on this planet. Narcissism at its finest. We have been moving people and cities around to accommodate nature since the beginning. Mankind is afraid of only one thing, inconvenience.

I like that argument, the stuff based on history, that is. But the idea that the planet will end up frozen is not correct. The earth started out molten and will end up molten. The sun is a white dwarf star, and About 5 billion years from now, the hydrogen fuel in the center of the Sun will begin to run out and the helium that has collected there will begin to gravitationally contract, increasing the rate of hydrogen burning in a shell surrounding the core. The sun will slowly bloat into a red giant, and in the process it will engulf the inner planets, including the Earth.

That sounds bad Axel. Hope I am not here when that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pogobob

Went surfing today and the water seems to be about 75, but my toes are still scraping the reef as I sit out the back waiting for the next set of waves just like always. But I do hate sharing the waves with those pesky polar bears though! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad

Yeah but it's only because there are so many people on earth that it's squeezing lava out just like a tube of toothpaste. See... It's still our fault and we should tax us by the pound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

The website www.scepticalscience.com has been quoted several times here. In it you can find a repudiation of any fact put forth by the doubters of global warming. It is packed with scientific "facts," and references, but I have yet to read anything that would hint at anything but certainty in the party line regarding global warming and climate change.

I have to give it to the guy - he has found yet another way to make money from this whole agenda. When he started his website he explained that he was neither a climatologist or scientist - but a self employed cartoonist. It appears as if providing a warm fuzzy blanket for all those wanting confirmation of their global warming beliefs is a money maker. They have a place where the supporting scientific "proof" can be spoon fed to them, and they can feel vindicated when confronted with any uncomfortable contradictory evidence.

I wish I would have thought of it. It has turned into a great capitalist venture. Any Google search on a GW topic sends you there. Estimated revenue alone is now making the guy almost $5,000/mo. And there have been rumors of a partnership with Al Gore and others. And I suspect donations are plentiful. The site alone is worth over $100,000 (maybe closer to half a million), and growing rapidly. I'm envious. A "moderator" making "bank."

Do you think he would ever have any desire to publish anything that might suggest any uncertainties? In fact, why would anyone becoming successful promoting global warming want to slow down such a lucrative gravy train? It's a simple equation. More Fear = More Money.

So, if you ever feel your faith in global warming waning, be sure to pay this site a visit. If you become worried or fearful, he has the answers. And I'm sure he will appreciate the business. And don't forget to hit the Donate button.

post-11-0-26494500-1409607811_thumb.png

post-11-0-92802900-1409609245_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtlevine

Dean your right on that Skeptical Science website. When you go there and read the opening statement the first thing they say is referencing Skeptics as Global Warming Deniers. Anytime anyone says denier, when talking about GW, you immediately know its not a science website but a propaganda website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

You guys are pretty one sided. I don't see you harping on any Given deniers propaganda website. Both are full of propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtlevine

You guys are pretty one sided. I don't see you harping on any Given deniers propaganda website. Both are full of propaganda.

I actually try to get my info from a variety of unbiased sources. Its not always easy but i try to do it. I also try to cross reference science that looks legitimate with other sights because i figure if multiple sites carry a research story it is more likely to be legit. It is a real tough subject because as discussed this is more a political issue in my opinion than a scientific one, so there are a lot of charlatans out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

The website www.scepticalscience.com has been quoted several times here. In it you can find a repudiation of any fact put forth by the doubters of global warming. It is packed with scientific "facts," and references, but I have yet to read anything that would hint at anything but certainty in the party line regarding global warming and climate change.

I have to give it to the guy - he has found yet another way to make money from this whole agenda. When he started his website he explained that he was neither a climatologist or scientist - but a self employed cartoonist. It appears as if providing a warm fuzzy blanket for all those wanting confirmation of their global warming beliefs is a money maker. They have a place where the supporting scientific "proof" can be spoon fed to them, and they can feel vindicated when confronted with any uncomfortable contradictory evidence.

I wish I would have thought of it. It has turned into a great capitalist venture. Any Google search on a GW topic sends you there. Estimated revenue alone is now making the guy almost $5,000/mo. And there have been rumors of a partnership with Al Gore and others. And I suspect donations are plentiful. The site alone is worth over $100,000 (maybe closer to half a million), and growing rapidly. I'm envious. A "moderator" making "bank."

Do you think he would ever have any desire to publish anything that might suggest any uncertainties? In fact, why would anyone becoming successful promoting global warming want to slow down such a lucrative gravy train? It's a simple equation. More Fear = More Money.

So, if you ever feel your faith in global warming waning, be sure to pay this site a visit. If you become worried or fearful, he has the answers. And I'm sure he will appreciate the business. And don't forget to hit the Donate button.

Hey Dean, sour grapes? Not to make it worse or anything, but looks like I got you beat with my Cloudforest.com site, it came up with a whopping $900. :floor: Sorry, I just couldn't pass this up. Put up a website about libertarian politics, and you're gonna make a lot more than talking about palms.

ScreenShot2014-09-01at75140PM_zpsa006ce0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtlevine
Thats not the crux of the article i posted Axel, there is no cherry picking of data and the IPCC approach to combating this is suspicious. Read the whole article i posted and you will see the concern. Totally political now, not about science anyway.

BTW, all the temperature data is cherry picked anyway. Many government climatologists were caught cherry picking this data for their climate models. I would say you better not trust your data any more than any other data.

Edited by Gtlevine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtlevine

BTW Axel, as my link showed the shenanigans of the United Nations. Do you really put any kind of faith in anything coming from the UN? The UN is the most corrupt bunch of Anti Semites on the planet. Everything they ever do revolves around trying to get money from the United States or punishing Israel. They have almost no useful purpose anymore. I would not trust one thing regarding climate change from those idiots.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...