Still no significant warming....

tom prendergast said:
Nobody has suggested, up to now anyway, that CERN is in the pockets of Big Oil. Jasper Kirkby has just been quietly getting on with the CLOUD experiment. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the results.

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2009/47/News%20Articles/1221077?ln=en

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684
Click to expand...

I am sure Kirkby knows someone who knows someone who used oil once... so clearly he is a shill for big oil.

http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/

The above link is to a completely different cloud issue... another local endeavor in Colorado.... thought you might enjoy.
 
Onceler said:
It's interesting when you think about it. The guy who was IN CHARGE of Bush's environmental task force was an petroleum lobbyist. He got cold-busted actually redacting sections of admin reports that tied man to warming, and went to work for Exxon the next day.

That got about a day or 2 in the media, and was never a "big" story.

The whole AGW email "scandal", by comparison, is now the basis for discounting any story about warming - it's the first line of attack, and is incredibly flimsy by comparison.
Click to expand...

LOLZ

Yeah, natural warming is just crazy!! Couldn't happen!
Ever heard of the null hypothesis? In Global warming, natural causes are the null hypothesis
 
tinfoil said:
LOLZ

Yeah, natural warming is just crazy!! Couldn't happen!
Ever heard of the null hypothesis? In Global warming, natural causes are the null hypothesis
Click to expand...

Your response makes no sense whatsoever. You have a very hard time w/ reading comprehension, and tend to knee-jerk all over the place when it comes to warming....
 
bravo said:
Thats quite funny....

Maher is usually more exact than just white males....saying old, white, Catholic, Conservative, Republican, Tea Party males would be more like him.
Click to expand...

Actually, Bravo is right (quick take a mental snapshot, you won't hear that again until 2020 has come and gone, at least). He did single out conservative tea party types.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-mah...f-white-male-supremacy-in-brett-favres-penis/

I can't find it on youtube, but this link has the video. THe best new rules ever. I mean, some feminists say they find Maher to be sexist, but I have never seen it, and I could have written this rant he went on. Its hysterical and dead-on.

I think I'll watch it again...
 
Superfreak said:
actually I have many REAL scientists as clients. Most of whom are in biotech and alt energy research.

As I pointed out... it is not like this would have to be some GIANT global conspiracy... 63 members of the NAS darla... 49 of whom are in the US. Most of the others in the world who study this, get data from one of three locations....

NASA... where one should be skeptical of Hansen
NOAA... another US government agency
East Anglia... where one also has to be skeptical of Jones and co.

TWO of the above refused to provide FOIA requests for data.
ONE has admitted that he destroyed raw data because it was too hard to store

Add to it the FACT that Jones himself stated that he doesn't think the debate is over and in his opinion he doesn't think most scientists would say it is over either.

again... when scientists refuse to show the data behind their equations... there is a problem.

REAL scientists abhor the whores.
Click to expand...

They are not talking about the debate in the way you mean. No scientist would ever say that any debate was over. They always say they are open to and collecting new information. That's what science is. But the data they are in possession of now has caused a scientific consensus to form whether you like it or not.
 
"If penises could cry...and I believe they can..."

Classic! It gets better everytime you watch it.

Not that I am trying to derail SF's flat earth thread...but you have to watch the Bill Maher tape.
 
Darla said:
They are not talking about the debate in the way you mean. No scientist would ever say that any debate was over. They always say they are open to and collecting new information. That's what science is. But the data they are in possession of now has caused a scientific consensus to form whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Again, the data is most certainly in question. There is not this magical 'consensus' that the politicians and pundits on the left keep pretending there is.

As I stated before.... SHOW us the hard evidence that shows man is the primary cause. At this time it is ALL conjecture and posturing by those that benefit directly from the fear mongering. Again... JONES stated that the reason it was 'man' was because they 'couldn't explain it with a natural forcing'... in other words 'since we can't solve the problem, we will just blame man'.

They are NOT open to collecting new information.

They are about silencing any and all opposition.

They have their little parrots come running and proclaiming any skeptic is 'a shill of big oil'

They don't address the critics brought by the skeptical, they attack the skeptical instead.
 
Onceler said:
I swear - that is so boring. It's like watching "The Queen" a dozen times in a row...
Click to expand...

But it is also true. It was the standard belief of econuts in 1970. We were going to cool down sharply, now we are going to warm sharply, onlyfor the last 15 years we HAVEN'T what is your explaination for why, if CO2 is still pouring into the atmosphere aren't we still on the increase? What, if man and his polluting is the cause of GW, is preventing the increase for the last 15 years?
 
All science is sponsored by someone. It is not done for free at Universities. Who does the funding is not the question. Does the science stand up to scrutiny and do the scientists present it for scrutiny. Those are the ONLY questions. How they are answered determines who is right and who is wrong.
 
Socrtease said:
But it is also true. It was the standard belief of econuts in 1970. We were going to cool down sharply, now we are going to warm sharply, onlyfor the last 15 years we HAVEN'T what is your explaination for why, if CO2 is still pouring into the atmosphere aren't we still on the increase? What, if man and his polluting is the cause of GW, is preventing the increase for the last 15 years?
Click to expand...

"Cooling" was always a fringe belief; it never really had support in the scientific community. In general, it's a bad comparison.

I'm not an AGW guy. I think it's impossible to prove either way. I want us off of fossil fuels for a variety of other reasons.

As for the past decade or so, it's a blip in the timeclock of natural history. Whether man is causing it or not, it's very likely that we will see increased warming as the years move along. It's not unusual to have multi-year anomolies in the midst of much longer-term trends.
 
Onceler said:
"Cooling" was always a fringe belief; it never really had support in the scientific community. In general, it's a bad comparison.

I'm not an AGW guy. I think it's impossible to prove either way. I want us off of fossil fuels for a variety of other reasons.

As for the past decade or so, it's a blip in the timeclock of natural history. Whether man is causing it or not, it's very likely that we will see increased warming as the years move along. It's not unusual to have multi-year anomolies in the midst of much longer-term trends.
Click to expand...

Funny how so many are flippant about the past 15 years not warming.

'Oh, it is just a blip'.... except for the FACT that the fear mongers highlight the fact that it is the warmest decade on RECORD. Meaning the past 120 years. Of which 15 years is greater than 10%. When you factor in that the significant portion of the warming occurred between 1970 and 1995, you have a 25 year period vs. the current 15 year period with no significant warming.

IF man is the cause.... WHAT has stopped it? Why do all the 'consensus' freaks continue to ignore this question? Why do their fear mongering masters not provide them with the answer?

I know you are not an AGW person as you proclaim, but you too give the same flippant... 'it's not a big deal response'

We are on the same page when it comes to reducing the fossil fuel use and investing into R&D for alt/clean energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top