Nice. Some idiot starts all this with a link to the Daily Mail and another idiots sees his stupidity and raises him to Breitbart.com, a site that should have died when its pungent, lying, fat-assed founder did.
Nice. Some idiot starts all this with a link to the Daily Mail and another idiots sees his stupidity and raises him to Breitbart.com, a site that should have died when its pungent, lying, fat-assed founder did.
The people who firmly believe in the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming our very emotionally attached to it, so when their beliefs are knocked, they understandably lash out. Just as it drives the people who doubt it crazy.
Here is the situation:
The Daily Mail just sourced sources indicating that there is more ice in the Arctic and mass increases of ice in the Antartic. This is actually true regardless of what you choose to believe in.
Temperatures have not gone up in 17 years, this is a recorded and documented fact, whether or not you believe in AGW.
There was climate Gate 1 and Climate Gate 2, this did happen, whether you want to believe in AGW or not.
The time has passed (last winter) where the scientists told Gore and Gore told us in a slick movie that the Arctic will be completely free of ice, it is not free of ice.
There are articles in various publications (check out Watts up With That) that talk about many temperature stations that were (by error) located to places that give off artificial heat, like heat vents for example. This is true whether you believe in AGW or not.
The 97% Scientists buy-in story has been torn about many times - again read Watt up with that website. BTW they are not creating this news, but sourcing it from elsewhere. They also have many scientists who blog or guest write on their site, not politicians, not entertainers, not journalists, but scientists.
Whether you like it or not, there are many things that are not happening that fly in the face of AGW, whether you believe in it or not, you have not choice on the matter, that's the case.
Also, the hurricanes have slowed to normal and below normal.
Also, there are many scientists who make it clear that many of the disasters that have happened, are well within historic normals.
AGW is not happening, climate change is likely not happening the data is clear on the matter. Just deal with the facts that are laid out in front of you by scientists, just as you swallowed the cool-aid of the politician, Al Gore.
I will take science of Poli on the matter.
But... wrote:
Shawn H wrote:Yeah, maybe you're right, "But." Or should I say "Butt"? Increased polar ice is obviously proof of man-made "global warming" even if it destroys the prediction of Al Gore, the god of global warming. And record cold winters are also proof of man-made global warming. And 17 years of no global warming at all are also proof of man-made global warming.
So-called experts once believe that the earth was flat and that the universe revolved around it. So-called experts believed that DDT is poisonous to people and got it banned, so millions have died in mosquito-infested places. So-called experts once believed that jacking off makes you go blind,too. So I think it's time that you stop doing it, especially on this forum.
Really? Butt? You have to stoop down to 3 year-old insults?
Do you understand the difference between "weather" and "climate?"
I'll use the analogy of someone upping the training slowly from 40 miles a week to 60 miles a week over the course of a year. At 40 miles a week, he averages almost 6 miles a day, but some days he'll run as much as 10 miles, other days as few as 3. As he bumps up the training, his longest runs might be 12 miles, but his shortest might still be 3. However, his average run is now 8.5 miles a day. Say a year later, now doing 60 miles a week, he goes for a 5 mile easy run, while the year before, at 40 miles a week, he did a run that same day that was 8 miles. He's training harder now, but if you look at a SINGLE run, he was training harder the year before.
It's the same way with climate. There will be record cold days, and winters, but the overall trend is warming. There will be plateaus, but those plateaus are temporary and do not mean that the earth is cooling. The plateau that everyone keeps talking about is still far warmer than any previous decade, it's just that for the time being it's not continuing to get dramatically warmer--it's already dramatically warmer.
I'm at a loss of how to deal with your "so-called experts" paragraph. The so-called experts were disproved by scientists! Isn't that the opposite of what you're arguing? I'll admit I wasn't aware DDT wasn't a huge environmental hazard like I'd thought; I'll have to read up on it.
Again with the insult that doesn't seem to befit your age and presumed stature. Stop.
Oh and you use the same name on FRB.
This is the funniest thing ever. It was global warming. And when it wasnt actually warming, they changed it to climate change to explain everything. And when that argument doesnt work, they now say that there is a difference between weather and climate. No one is buying that one either.
If you google the "97% of scientist believe" crap, you will see that it is a myth.
Blowing Rock Master! wrote:
But... wrote:... except when it comes to climate science (politics I disagree with him on, obviously, but that's neither here nor there).
Perhaps this is the problem - Shawn H is talking about science based on science, but you and TR are talking about science based on politics.
LOL! If you seriously think that most conservatives don't believe in the global warming position put forth by the extremely high majority of climate experts *because* they are well versed and understand the science in question, and simply disagree based on that science and only that science , rather than disagreeing based on ideology (see: anti-Al Gore, anti-regulation, anti-science, etc) than you are incredibly deluded or insane.
I know that also think that is why you don't believe it, and yes, that's pretty funny too. You might understand the science a decent amount, and better than most conservatives (or even most people, for that matter), but that isn't the reason you have the opinion you do, and you know it. You had an opinion first, and then second to that, read some science in order to pretend this is what you were objectively basing your opinion on. Sort of like "fix(ing)..the intelligence and facts around the policy", only in this case its "fixing the science and facts around an ideology."
Neither a lib nor a con I be. wrote:
Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore.........
If this wasn't so sad it would be hysterical. One more time: GET THE F-CK OVER AL GORE. Virtually no scientist cares an iota about Al Gore. Most democrats have forgotten he ever existed, but you insane right wingers can't let him go, and he 100% fuels your denial of climate science. Holy christ what is wrong with you knuckleheads??
CNR wrote:
If you google the "97% of scientist believe" crap, you will see that it is a myth.
If you google "carbs are poison" you can find sites that "prove" that.
If you google "vaccines cause autism", you can find LOTS of sites that will "prove" that.
If you google "the moon landing was faked"...same thing
And on and on it goes.
Just because you "google" something, and find somebody to agree with you and back it up with "references" (lol), it doesn't it is remotely true.
ANd this is the backbone of the conservative movement: we don't need experts, we don't need scientific opinion, we don't need facts.....we have created our own thinktanks and websites and blogs to create our our OWN "facts," our OWN "truth", or own "reality." F' the CDC, F' mainstream science, F' mainstream reality.
"Google it..." Yes, you will always find the "truth" you want to find if you do that. What a joke.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
You might understand the science a decent amount, and better than most conservatives (or even most people, for that matter), but that isn't the reason you have the opinion you do, and you know it. You had an opinion first, and then second to that, read some science in order to pretend this is what you were objectively basing your opinion on.
- So I'm a conservative? I think drugs, prostitution, gambling, and abortion should be legal. I don't think the government should have any say in marriage. I think we should quit being the world's policeman. And I think most cops are lying thugs. Does that sound conservative?
- Whenever I've posted on the scientific aspect of this subject I've only discussed the science. If the subject switched to government policy then I've discussed the politics (actually I tend to bring up the economic damage of the politics). I've always maintained global warming is happening, but no one has ever shown me any evidence that humans are the cause. In your post, you brought up politics but not science. Am I biased? Of course I am. Everybody brings their biases to any argument, including you. If you think I'm wrong, show me the evidence. But if you think you're going to convince anyone of anything by making attacks on their beliefs instead of using reason you are out of your mind.
- Underling your post makes it very hard to read.
- If you're ever in the Boone-Blowing Rock area of NC let me know and I'll take you for a run over at Bass Lake.
Yes but the mass hysteria echoed by the masses love their Gore, so no, I won't get over him. If he hadn't starred in that ridiculous movie, this would have already gone away with Y2K, killer bees, the ice-age (libs rhetoric from the 70s - the ice-age didn't come either) and all the rest of the sky is falling lies and hoaxes.
Here is a test for you. Instead of Google-searching words that promote AGW, try Google-searching words that refute it. Funny thing happens, you get mass amounts of scientists who don't agree with the 97% buy-in lie or the notion of AGW.
You also find information you would not otherwise find, like graphs and data by scientists showing nothing unusual has happened in two decades.
Here is the real scary thing. The major media give little voice to the non-AGW side. That's how you like your news, completely one-sided?
Stop digging in your heels so hard and look at both sides, rather than behaving like a television evangelist or a cult member, just totally brain washed.
Hey T-Rex,
Here is the latest from Watts Up With That.
Looks like the National Geographic - a publication I otherwise totally love, has adjusted their paranoid delusional rhetoric.
Why can't you?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/31/national-geographics-warming-warning-10-years-later/
Neither a lib nor a con I be. wrote:
Yes but the mass hysteria echoed by the masses love their Gore, so no, I won't get over him. If he hadn't starred in that ridiculous movie, this would have already gone away with Y2K, killer bees, the ice-age (libs rhetoric from the 70s - the ice-age didn't come either) and all the rest of the sky is falling lies and hoaxes.
Here is a test for you. Instead of Google-searching words that promote AGW, try Google-searching words that refute it. Funny thing happens, you get mass amounts of scientists who don't agree with the 97% buy-in lie or the notion of AGW.
You also find information you would not otherwise find, like graphs and data by scientists showing nothing unusual has happened in two decades.
Here is the real scary thing. The major media give little voice to the non-AGW side. That's how you like your news, completely one-sided?
Stop digging in your heels so hard and look at both sides, rather than behaving like a television evangelist or a cult member, just totally brain washed.
I see. So you have self-identified as one who is unable to understand the difference between pop science (Time/Newsweek of the 70s) and actual science. Such a level of abject and proud ignorance is something that I find utterly fascinating. Perhaps you could tell us more.
Was Einstein a pop scientist?
"Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head."
-Albert Einstein.
Poignant, don't you think, Moron?
You are not so smart. The 97% myth is not an opinion. If is a fact that it is a myth.
The 97% number cited is not from scientists who did a study. It was a SURVEY sent out to some 10,700 scientists. About a third of those SURVEYS were returned.
The 97% figure came from two push-pull questions on the survey. And that nunber was statistically incorrect because they combined both of those numbers.
Of course, when the facts get inthe way of your losing argument attack the messenger with strawman arguments.
It's 2014. People still believe in global warming? I guess this is what people mean when they religion is bad.
Here is something you have to think about:
A number of years ago the science was "settle" and all the experts (climatologists, Meterologists, etc.) ALL agreed that the Earth was warming and that the warming was due to man: CO2 emissions were causing the warming. Everyone came to terms with GLOBAL WARMING. No more discussion. The science was settle. The earth was warming and the Polar Caps would melt and the ocean levels would rise. Increased Hurricanic activity. But something funny happened. The Earth quit warming. But how can all these "experts" continue to call it Global Warming if the Earth was no longer warming?
Hence, they changed to CLIMATE CHANGE. Even though the science was setttled and everyone agreed. Now everyone agreed that Climate Change was the new phony term to use. Oh and the last major hurricane to hit the US? Wilma in 2005. It has been a DECADE SINCE A MAJOR HURRICANE EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE KNEW THAT THE SEVERITY OF HURRIANCES WAS GOING TO INCREASE.
Hey Global Warming Hoaxsters!!! We are on to you phonies! Now get lost!
Neither a lib nor a con I be. wrote:
Was Einstein a pop scientist?
"Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head."
-Albert Einstein.
Poignant, don't you think, Moron?
Pretty sure that Einstein did not confuse the pop science that can be found within pop news magazines with science.
I'm also going to take a wild guess and say that as scientists came to understand his theories of relativity well before the morons of the day he was not on the side of the morons.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
CNR wrote:If you google the "97% of scientist believe" crap, you will see that it is a myth.
If you google "carbs are poison" you can find sites that "prove" that.
If you google "vaccines cause autism", you can find LOTS of sites that will "prove" that.
If you google "the moon landing was faked"...same thing
And on and on it goes.
Just because you "google" something, and find somebody to agree with you and back it up with "references" (lol), it doesn't it is remotely true.
ANd this is the backbone of the conservative movement: we don't need experts, we don't need scientific opinion, we don't need facts.....we have created our own thinktanks and websites and blogs to create our our OWN "facts," our OWN "truth", or own "reality." F' the CDC, F' mainstream science, F' mainstream reality.
"Google it..." Yes, you will always find the "truth" you want to find if you do that. What a joke.
You'll find the looniest sites out there if you google "global warming is real"
Ice Cap Growing?
Ummm...might want to check out the graph.
Then just STFU, at least until your next talking point is brought to you by Big Carbon for additional stupidity fun.
You choose to move off target, address the quote, moron.
Neither a lib nor a con I be. wrote:
You choose to move off target, address the quote, moron.
I completely agree that you are a moron, incapable of critical thinking and easily manipulated by industry mouthpieces. So, yes, we can both agree to that.
Oh, and by the way, the real target of this thread is, shall I remind you; "Ice Cap Growing..." Except it's not (see my link above).
Now, what was it you said, again? Oh yes, you choose to move off target. Try addressing the issue with real evidence. Otherwise just accept the fact that you are a moron and move on with your life as such.
Do you realize that in some American States that woman could have been charged with murder for having that squid fetus removed from her mouth.