Sept 13, ready to turn my furnace ON
|
Sept 13, ready to turn my furnace ON
I'm about to turn mine off, usually do it 1st of OctoberQuote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Will have to turn mine on soon too.
Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 | Real ScienceQuote:
Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record. There is more sea ice now than there was on this date in 2002.
And this was the year the Arctic was supposed to be ice free
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post3547283
It just goes to show we don't know everything, the genuses who gave us global warming have been leading us around by the ring in our nosesQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, flat earthers:
Some people understand science, and some don't. Some people understand that weather ISN'T global warming, and some don't. Some people understand geologic time, and some don't.
excon
The lead climatologists promoting the nonsense of AGW certainly don't ,or if they do ,they distort the record with falsified data to "hide the decline" i.e. the fluctuations during various periods of geological time. None of them even come close the including other variables in their calculations that may include geological events ,but also solar and other cosmic events . I doubt if they've even heard of Henrik Svensmark and his hypothesis,Quote:
Some people understand geologic time, and some don't.
Theories, and hypothesis fade from the minds of men getting out of the way of floods, and hurricanes, and tornadoes.
Hello again, tom:
I'm NOT a scientist, and I have NO idea who that is.. But, BECAUSE I'm NOT a scientist, I can CHOOSE to believe what 97% of the worlds scientists TELL me, or I can believe the other 3%.Quote:
I doubt if they've even heard of Henrik Svensmark and his hypothesis,
Because I BELIEVE in science, I absolutely BELIEVE what scientists tell me. Of course, I'm also aware that science is DYNAMIC. What is today, is likely to CHANGE tomorrow.. Does that mean you DISCARD what you know today? I don't think it does.
What I DON'T believe is that scientists HAVE an agenda OTHER than pure science.. Yes, there are those who work for the oil companies, and THEY have an agenda. And, there are those who work for somebody else with an agenda.. BUT, the OVERWHELMING majority of scientists work for higher learning institutions what have NO agenda OTHER than science...
Those are the people who tell me man is affecting the climate of the planet, and I BELIEVE it... Besides, as I've said here TIME and TIME again, something bad happens when we throw our trash into the air. Nobody has to tell me that.
Excon
The emails confirmed that the scientist from those institutes of higher learning doctored their results with falsified data to achieve predetermined results. That appears to be that superior science you speak of .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:
Nahhhh.Quote:
the emails confirmed that the scientist from those institutes of higher learning doctored their results with falsified data to achieve predetermined results. That appears to be that superior science you speak of .
ExconQuote:
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding NO EVIDENCE of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.
If you were as open minded on the subject as you pretend to be then you should look up the hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark . As for the findings... if the hockey stick graph that is the basis of the whole AGW hypothesis was developed with excluded data from a significant period ,then the premise of the evidence that supports the hypothesis is flawed. It is a stretch to believe that they did not commit fraud when their emails indicate that they knew of the variations and intentionally hid them from their data.
Hello again, tom:
Call me close minded if you wish, but in MY non scientific view, you can't throw your trash into the air and expect NOTHING bad to happen.. I simply reject, out of hand, ANY hypothesis that says you CAN.Quote:
then the premise of the evidence that supports the hypothesis is flawed
Look.. I can't SEE that the earth is round.. Yes, I KNOW scientists have shown me pictures, but they could be doctored for all I know. Nonetheless, I simply take their word for it.
Excon
Usually only need my furnace on from mid Oct to mid MarQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Let's not get back to this trash in the air nonsense. You join the flat earth society if you want to ex or the round earth society if that pleases you but please don't tell us a naturally occurring substance is pollution. That is a political view, not a scientific one. Science has stumbled from one view to another since the enlightenment released man to pursue scientific reason. Many of the ideas they have explored are wrong and research wrongly applied, so if it is all the same to you I won't take their word for itQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Take their word for it when there is a significant dissenting view (and no ;they all don't work for the oil companies) ;and we have the evidence that they doctored their results... Take their word for it when the very models they constructed have not held for almost 2 decades .
Don't worry abot ex Tom he is a clone
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "fifth assessment report," will be published on Sept. 27.It will dial back the alarm of the harm cause by so called 'man made AGW' .
Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail OnlineQuote:
Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked Summary for Policy-makers showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'. She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased. 'The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.
What is it they say about computers... garbage in, garbage out?
Comparing weather stations reading that 30 years ago when they were installed were in the middle of a field... with no development around... to today when they are surrounded buy large structures and several acres of asphault parking lot adjacent to it.
Well DUH... create made made heat Island aorund a weather station... I'm niot surpriised IT sees a difference... Doesn't mean there is a change a few hundred yards away where it ISN'T developed.
If you change the criteria the data is collected under... then you can't use the date from before that change as a reference because it was collected under different conditions. But facts aren't part of Liberal "Science" tology.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:50 PM. |