Jump to content



Photo

Global Warming or Cycles of the Sun?


  • Please log in to reply
258 replies to this topic

#51 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:06 PM

:palmface: It's disgusting how they've gotten this lie into people's heads. And it has nothing to do with this topic, except for the illustration of the propaganda machine
One thing they should do is solarize a vast amount of federal and state buildings, requiring the cells be US made


Much easier said than done.

Converting Solar power is the most costly of all green energy sources.

If we could ever harness this more efficiently then sure.

#52 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:27 PM

I'm not arguing that volcanic activity can't impact climate, it clearly does.

I'm curious to see this spate of volcanic activity that is correlated with increase in global temperatures.

#53 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,993 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:29 PM

The big money always pushes this skepticism (first the whole thing was junk science, now the why is junk science, once the why then it'll be skepticism on effect of solutions) .


:shakes head:


conversely, big money may be pushing those who stand to profit from emissions trading and other such programs?

No opinion on this issue, I don't know enough about it. Just throwing that out there.

#54 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,993 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:39 PM

We should, but how do we?


stop eating meat. livestock create more greenhouse gases than all the cars on the planet.

http://www.un.org/ap...772&CR1=warning

#55 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:43 PM

conclusive evidence
Posted Image

#56 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:43 PM

stop eating meat. livestock create more greenhouse gases than all the cars on the planet.

http://www.un.org/ap...772&CR1=warning


A noble gensture, but to get billions of people to stop eating meat is unrealistic.

Plus I love me some good meat.

#57 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:48 PM

I'm not arguing that volcanic activity can't impact climate, it clearly does.

I'm curious to see this spate of volcanic activity that is correlated with increase in global temperatures.


I did a little more research on this:

Let me clarify, when there is no actual volcanic eruption in any particular year, we (humans) emit more than volcanic activity (i.e., Hawaii).

But when there is a large scale eruption like Iceland, that fars excedes a decades worth of man mande emissions.

#58 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:49 PM

conversely, big money may be pushing those who stand to profit from emissions trading and other such programs?

No opinion on this issue, I don't know enough about it. Just throwing that out there.

It is very different to discuss what is the best way to lower than to discuss whether we need to.

So it's not "conversely"

#59 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:58 PM

I did a little more research on this:

Let me clarify, when there is no actual volcanic eruption in any particular year, we (humans) emit more than volcanic activity (i.e., Hawaii).

But when there is a large scale eruption like Iceland, that fars excedes a decades worth of man mande emissions.


Yes but volcanic eruptions have always occurred. There is no rise in eruptions associated with a rise in global temperature. There is a rise in man made CO2 emissions. The same applies to your Sun cycle argument.
http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm
"One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge."
Posted Image
Superimposed
Posted Image

#60 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,993 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:59 PM

It is very different to discuss what is the best way to lower than to discuss whether we need to.

So it's not "conversely"


Ya know, I questioned using that word. thanks, Dan

#61 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:59 PM

Man made global warming more closely resembles religion than it does science.

Climate change is real, and it is probably more likely that the sun, earth, universe are far more responsible for it than human activity.

#62 Jwheelz

Jwheelz
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,867 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:01 PM

there is no proof or evidence whatsoever of the existence of a God or supreme being... there's lots of evidence of global warming caused by human action, of course if somebody doesn't consider the evidence (which I'm too tired and lazy to actually list anywhere) valid then there's really no convincing them otherwise... which is why I'm reluctant to post in a thread like this...

/thread

#63 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,993 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:02 PM

A noble gensture, but to get billions of people to stop eating meat is unrealistic.

Plus I love me some good meat.


That's the thing, we can talk about the need for change yet no one wants to give up their cars, their cheeseburgers, or their conveniences.

We're prolly screwed. prolly.

#64 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:03 PM

My beliefs on global warming more closely resemble religion than it does science.

Climate change is real, and it is probably more likely that the sun, earth, universe are far more responsible for it than human activity.



#65 bigtoddy

bigtoddy
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,227 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:04 PM

Dan I know you bleed donkey blue and that no democrat could ever be wrong, but seriously look at Gore, the broad's of directors he sits on, where his money comes from, and then you start to see why he's been pushing this agenda. While big oil and big energy have a stake in this and are as always suspect, in this case so is the other side. Gore's money trail leads to too many things that will amke too much money if this carbon tax stuff happens that its *almost* as bad as the other side. Gore's a sham, the whole thing's just a money making and control venture.

#66 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:07 PM

I've got such a bruise on my forehead right now. I'm shutting off the internet.

#67 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:11 PM

Yes but volcanic eruptions have always occurred. There is no rise in eruptions associated with a rise in global temperature. There is a rise in man made CO2 emissions. The same applies to your Sun cycle argument.
http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm
Posted Image
Superimposed
Posted Image



But those other volcanic eruptions do not spew out as much as the Iceland volcano does on average.

Mt St Helen was a bad one also.

Smaller ones are not as bad, but in whole possibly.

As for the charts, hard for me to believe anything about solar activity prior to 1990 since I am pretty sure were not looking at the sun for activity then.

I think we only put together solar activity and its effects in 1998 when hundreds of millions of dollars were lost due to malfunctioning satelites hit by a solar wind. Today, we shut the satelite down for a few minutes so intstruments are not damaged by solar winds.

#68 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:15 PM

there is no proof or evidence whatsoever of the existence of a God or supreme being... there's lots of evidence of global warming caused by human action, of course if somebody doesn't consider the evidence (which I'm too tired and lazy to actually list anywhere) valid then there's really no convincing them otherwise... which is why I'm reluctant to post in a thread like this...

/thread


I agree that humans are part of the problem, but my argument is that the axis or orbit of the earth and Solar activity has A LOT more to do with global warming than anyone has ever given credit for.

We can see effects of what we have done from CO2, to the messes we make world wide.

We can not see solar activity or the axis or orbit of the earth.


I just think everyone is focused on what we do as the cause. Yes part of the cause, No doubt. The sole contributor? No way.

#69 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:16 PM

You can click the links and read the peer reviewed science those charts are based on.

Or cast science aside and go with your gut.

#70 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:21 PM


Yes, yes of c ourse. Just how many PPM of CO2 does it take to acidify the oceans. 440 PPM? The problem with the CO2 argument is that you breath in more parts than the "scientific" association between PPM in the air on average increase from emissions than that of your own body.

You can say Im being dogmatic, but the onus is not on me to prove my case adn so far, the man made crowd falls extermely short in justifying their opinion on the matter to sway all public scrutiny. It is apparent that the other side is the dogmatic party in this debate.

#71 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:26 PM

there is no proof or evidence whatsoever of the existence of a God or supreme being... there's lots of evidence of global warming caused by human action, of course if somebody doesn't consider the evidence (which I'm too tired and lazy to actually list anywhere) valid then there's really no convincing them otherwise... which is why I'm reluctant to post in a thread like this...

/thread


PS. The good thing about this type of thread is, no one is right. Everything said here is your opinion.

#72 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:29 PM

You can click the links and read the peer reviewed science those charts are based on.

Or cast science aside and go with your gut.



I clicked on the link. Charting of the sun began in 1978. And there are 11 year cycles, we are in a high period this year.

The thing that all of these surveys and actual activity do not take in to account is the following:

When there is sunspots or solar flares, the earth may or may not be in the line of fire, and when the earth is in the line of fire (like the past few years) then there is a quicker increase is tempature.

...

I am wrong, prolly. But are the Al gore freaks wrong too, prolly. I just think it is more than green house gases.

#73 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:30 PM

for every piece of evidence of man made GW, there is evidence that GW is not man made. Choose your science and respect other's choices. makes for good conversation.

#74 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:37 PM

I'll end my participation here encouraging people to look into the actual science and not the misdirects and misinformation perpetuated by industry and their political puppets.

#75 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:39 PM

for every piece of evidence of man made GW, there is evidence that GW is not man made. Choose your science and respect other's choices. makes for good conversation.


that only applies to skeptics. Those that dogmatically believe in the man made version will certainly atttack those who are skeptical as being ignorant, science side stepping, conservative losers who have been duped by the propaganda machine.

The skeptics wont take opinion as science and therefore, are the enemy. In the end, there is no solution to this "problem" in which ever way you want to see it unless you want to choose a king and have him enforce your belief by taking away human actions and sending us back to the stone age.

#76 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:48 PM

I'll end my participation here encouraging people to look into the actual science and not the misdirects and misinformation perpetuated by industry and their political puppets.


My problem with charting prior to 1978 is Who knows. They based those on models, there equation could be wrong. In general it may be right but does not account for anaomolies or sun spot proximity to earth,

Another thing I did was generailze and combine Solar activity with Earth orbit around the sun. Assuming both were tied together. Both are mutually exclusive.


http://www.dnr.mo.go...ergy/cc/cc7.htm
The amount of solar energy received by the earth is greatest when the earth is nearest the sun. This phenomenon is called the eccentricity of the orbit and has a 100,000 year cycle. This factor, combined with the tilt of the earth's axis, is believed to cause seasonal climate changes which are out of phase in each hemisphere. For instance, northern hemisphere winters are currently milder and summers cooler than normal. The opposite situation, colder winters and hotter summers, is now occurring in the southern hemisphere.


Another article:
http://www.livescien...permafrost.html

Earth's Orbit Blamed for Ancient Hot Spells

About 55 million years ago, an intense heat wave hit the planet. Earth's surface temperature surged by 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius). Then, after a relatively short time, the heat subsided, only to be followed by at least two similar, but smaller heat waves.

Based on chemical clues preserved in rocks, scientists believe a surge of carbon dioxide warmed the planet. But where did all of this greenhouse gas come from?

A team of scientists is proposing that it came from the melting of permafrost, frozen soil packed with organic matter, after cycles in the Earth's orbit warmed up the areas near the poles. The melting released a massive amount of carbon into the atmosphere, keeping reflected sunlight from escaping and causing the heat wave.

The earth's rotational axis is tilted with respect to the sun. This is called obliquity and is defined as the angle between the earth's orbit and the plane of the earth's equator. The tilt is toward the sun in the summer hemisphere and away from the sun in the winter hemisphere. The tilt of the earth changes cyclically between 21 3/4 degrees and 24 1/4 degrees. The period of cyclicity is 42,000 years. A large tilt warms the poles and causes smaller temperature differences in the summer hemisphere. The current tilt is 23 1/2 degrees.

#77 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:48 PM

I remember years ago flying into large cities and on the descent, going through a thick layer of brown smog. Haven't seen that in years. Seems to me we are cleaning things up. Perhaps not to some standards but it is going in the right direction. I work in this industry and know how the EPA regulates and monitors industry. Anyone who thinks that it is a free for all, is happily mistaken. My knowledge is specific to industrial applications and I understand that is not the whole of the "man made" reasons.

#78 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,146 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:41 PM

a volcanic eruption nearly caused another ice age in a single eruption so to speak.....250 years since or whatever the math is :funny1: the industrialized world hasn't

don't sell short volcanos :joker:

#79 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,146 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:49 PM

Who said they can't? They can and some do. Implementing laws to require it is where it stops as this would put an overwhelming burden on an already downspiraling manufacturing sector.


the burden is corporate bs...we've. outsourced our technology long ago so big wigs can fatten their wallets...the burden is our own fault imhbio.

#80 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:33 PM

Well now I see the context of this post. Interestingly, NOAA. The non-partisan weather folks NOAA concluded that man made warming had to be a factor in the Texas drought.

Awesome that you're smart enough to disagree.

<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.c...ayer_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&&contentValue=50127698&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7414454n" />

http://www.cbsnews.c...ch/?id=7414454n


(at least we can all agree this board blows/sux)

#81 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:36 PM

And it's awesome you spent the time doing the research. Plugging in the data. etc. You rock

#82 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:43 PM

http://articles.chic...ernmental-panel

As surely as stink follows a garbage truck, the deadly national heat wave brought forth predictable and terrifying scenarios from global warming alarmists.
Triumphantly, the alarmists proclaimed that global warming (or climate change, or extreme weather, or whatever is their latest rendition of Earth's frightful fate) was back high on the list of everyone's worst fears


Told-ya-sos flowed. Denunciations of global warming "skeptics" and "deniers" were renewed. The threadbare mantra — "the science is in, the debate is over" — was re-energized.
Reliably, a Washington Post story about Colorado's destructive wildfires waved away fact with speculation: "Lightning and suspected arson ignited them four weeks ago, but scientists and federal officials say the table was set by a culprit that will probably contribute to bigger and more frequent wildfires for years to come: climate change."
And thus the unconscionable corruption of real science by global warming propagandists continues unabated. It's unconscionable because they are using the loss of life and destruction of property as a prop to get you to believe that the worst is yet to come. It's unconscionable because making such predictions is not what real science does. For all the condemnation about "anti-science deniers" on the right, the truth is that actual anti-science folks are the ones on the left using bad science to try to scare the bejabbers out of us.
Science is about verifiable and transparent experimental replication, so much of which is ignored by the Catechism of Global Warming — otherwise known as "assessment reports" — foisted upon the public by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Enough holes have been poked in these reports to make any assertion of scientific consensus a joke.
Well-documented is the IPCC's conduct unbecoming scientists: secrecy, questionable data, reliance on nonscientific "studies" (including news releases), massaging research to produce a desired result, lack of objectivity and independence, heavy involvement of activist (i.e. nonscientific) groups or of people whose interests are pecuniary, and wild conclusions (e.g. the supposed disappearance of Himalayan glaciers by 2035). Their catastrophic climate predictions are based on an arrogant presumption that the multiple causations of something as complex and poorly understood as climate change can be plugged into a computer, and out pops unchallengeable results. Like the assertion — now widely discredited — that climate change was spawning a flood of killer hurricanes.
Garbage in, garbage out.
In response to many well-founded criticisms, including from scientists expert in the field of study being "assessed," the IPCC convened a supposedly independent panel that included insiders and mostly absolved itself of error. Errors that panel members could not ignore were brushed aside on the specious grounds that they didn't affect the core conclusion that man-made carbon dioxide emissions will inevitably doom us.
Is destructive man-made global warming possible? Yes. Is it likely? I don't know. Is it certain? No.
Any "science" that concludes that a future event or condition is inevitable is as suspect as a fortuneteller's prediction. Especially suspicious are predictions, like those advanced by alarmists, that are based on data that are incomplete and a theoretical construct that is difficult, if not impossible with today's technology, to verify.

The deconstruction of science by alarmists has been so thorough that now people ask each other if they "believe in global warming." As if it were a matter of faith, rather than science. More pointedly, it has become a political question, rather than a scientific one. Those "assessment reports" are political and polemical documents, far from the objective, balanced and careful discussion demanded in authentic scientific papers.
The alarmists have become more aware of the PR dangers of issuing unqualified doomsday predictions with every heat wave, hurricane or wildfire that happens along. To sound more reasonable, they now pepper their propaganda with cautions about how individual events, unusual precipitation or record temperatures do not necessarily prove the hypotheses of climate alarmists.
That's because the public is catching on. Public opinion polls might not show it — yet — but my guess is that alarmists have played the catastrophe card several times too often. Americans will increasingly disregard the alarmists' hyperventilating. Because they are bored by it. Or disgusted by the shameful use of human tragedy to make a political point.

#83 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:43 PM

NOAA must be right. :lol:

I am now more on the we are closer to the sun and that leads to permafrost melting, which can all agree is happening. Then the methane and CO2 frozen in the permafrost now melts and attributes to green house gases increasing in the atmosphere.

I do not think the 11 year cycles have any real impact, except when in a high period and or when sun spots face earth.

I also think massive volcanic erruptions like Iceland on top of the man made green house gases,


In the infamous words of C-3PO - "We're doomed".

#84 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:46 PM

It happens every time there is a record temp. a hurricane, a drought, etc...

My favorite lines from the above:

Is destructive man-made global warming possible? Yes. Is it likely? I don't know. Is it certain? No.

That popped up this morning in my newsfeed, as GW is one of my tags. I got a gigle out of it.

#85 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:52 PM

Yes, yes.

Let's listen to some Chicago blogger who may or may not be being paid to shill a message over the scientists at NOAA.

Let's start making up shit, because it can't be that the scientists have any idea what they're talking about.

Bravo!

#86 tiedyesky

tiedyesky
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,395 posts
  • Locationjust outside the box

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:56 PM

many native americans believe that if an engine runs hot and eventually burns out without oil, that the earth eventually will do the same. that she needs the oil underground to keep those pesky tectonic plates lubed up properlike
not sure how much i buy into this theory, but i find it has as much merit as any other bit of science that i cannot prove nor disprove. and its in laymans terms as well :dunno:

#87 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:01 PM

Posted Image

#88 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:01 PM

Yes, yes.

Let's listen to some Chicago blogger who may or may not be being paid to shill a message over the scientists at NOAA.

Let's start making up shit, because it can't be that the scientists have any idea what they're talking about.

Bravo!


great to see you can keep it civil

Bravo!

#89 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:10 PM

you're welcome!

#90 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:27 PM

Yes, yes.

Let's listen to some Chicago blogger who may or may not be being paid to shill a message over the scientists at NOAA.

Let's start making up shit, because it can't be that the scientists have any idea what they're talking about.

Bravo!


That's exactly what the IPCC has been doing all along. I know, Ive read and researched enough of their "assessment reports", the counter claims, the data massage shame, etc....

The predictions of climate scientists that reap the reward of ever growing funding to keep providing their "science" would certainly not make them shills at all. Nope.

But I do love a good alarmist meltdown equipped with condescension. It makes for interesting discourse.

#91 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:41 PM

That's exactly what the IPCC has been doing all along. I know, Ive read and researched enough of their "assessment reports", the counter claims, the data massage shame, etc....

Oh, of course, all these scientists are making it up, yet.... somehow...

The predictions of climate scientists

have panned out.

#92 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:43 PM

:lmao:


You're not the most honest debater Ive encountered, Dan.

That is for sure. :lmao:

#93 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:43 PM

And no, no they have not. Suite melt though.

#94 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:57 PM

:lmao:


You're not the most honest debater Ive encountered, Dan.

That is for sure. :lmao:

Not only am I honest, but I am a masterdebator

And no, no they have not. Suite melt though.

It's not I that is melting, it's the polar ice caps bud. As predicted. Which at the time it was postulated was given the same derision you are heaping on it now.

#95 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,146 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:59 PM

like CA said...plant more trees and bushes...if we are going to be really warm now we can at least breathe in cleaner warmer air.

sorry guys if it is a lighter warmer outside today...not only did I smoke a cigarette but I also farted on numerous occasions.

I'm a bad human...bad, bad human.

as far as manmade GW I believe there is merit to what they state regarding carbon emissions in the future if nothing is done (becoming like Venus) but I just don't think we are making such an impact to panic.

I blame the French!

#96 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:12 PM

Not only am I honest, but I am a masterdebator
It's not I that is melting, it's the polar ice caps bud. As predicted. Which at the time it was postulated was given the same derision you are heaping on it now.


Massaging posts, much like massaging data - think IPCC, is not debating, It's condescension to create a preferred view lacking any evidence to back up a claim.

The ice caps are melting. No one is suggesting climate change isn't occuring. That isn't the debate here. The debate here is whether or not climate change is a natural result of solar/planetary/universal shift, or if it is strictly a man made catastrophy.

i agree with Andy on this. The IPCC has already been caught fudging data, lying outright, strong arming others into consensus and so non. That leaves me leaning on it's is an overblow attempt to get people to believe in something so that they can be controlled through govt.

Perhaps you missed this in 2009. I dont know, but the "science" is not science if the data is being deliberately massaged to produce an outcome.

http://undebunked.wo...global-warming/

http://www.dailymail...-colleague.html

These people have been caught and exposed. Is there any truth to man made gloabl warming? Perhaps.

Is it the end all of debate adn the scientific evidence is in? Not in the least. Not even by a long shot.

#97 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:29 PM

http://www.factcheck...12/climategate/

This BS that there was fraud and that they were "exposed" , that the data was being deliberately massage does just not hold water.

It does show some embarrassing things, like one scientist saying he will keep an opposing view out of a report. However, the reality is the opposing view was in the report.

......

and as to your charge that I was "massaging posts" , I was responding to your post. I didn't change a word. I just . cut . you . off. mid-sentence. and responded. It's just the same as I had written:

Oh, of course, all these scientists are making it up, yet.... somehow..."The predictions of climate scientists" have panned out

#98 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:33 PM

and as to your charge that I was "massaging posts" , I was responding to your post. I didn't change a word. I just . cut . you . off. mid-sentence. and responded. It's just the same as I had written:
Good god, man. Do you even have a clue what you just said and how embarrassing this must be? Im embarrassed for you.



At any rate, this tit for tat "you have to be a believer" nonsense in concert with the typical alarmist condescension, is not what i think Andy had in Mind for the discussion. You go ahead and believe that man is the reason for climate shift, and I'll reserve my seat on the fence and keep watching both the climate "science" crowd, along with the sun, Earth and universe on it.

#99 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:35 PM

and let me add, I certainly had no intention of doing anything dishonest there... and I don't think it was dishonest. But I do apologize if I hurt your feelings.

If you'd prefer me to change it to the way I re-say it in the post above, I'd be happy to edit the post

#100 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:38 PM

and as to your charge that I was "massaging posts" , I was responding to your post. I didn't change a word. I just . cut . you . off. mid-sentence. and responded. It's just the same as I had written:
Good god, man. Do you even have a clue what you just said and how embarrassing this must be? Im embarrassed for you.

How beautifully condescending.

And how beautiful that you cut me off in your quote. Are you embarrassed for yourself too?