ADVERTISEMENT

Does the snow storm disprove climate change?

Oh, so then you are a denier and not just an outlier. yeah, that's not good for you.

So it's all some vast conspiracy then. One would probably have an easier time convincing 911 truthers hat it wasn't an inside job or that we did actually make it the moon but I'd rather watch this game than do that.
 
I don't think it's a conspiracy at all, you watch whatever you like. You believe things are an absolute certainty when in your previous post you stated nothing is absolute in science, or in other words we're right until we decide we're wrong.
If you want to believe that man is on the verge of doomsday, go ahead. The atomic clock just moved ahead a minute, there's something else to scare the masses.
 
You would need some evidence to the contrary, then formulate the science of why around it. Then you form predictions and test them based on your observations.

You then write up a paper have it submitted to a journal and get it scrutinized. That is what you need to do deny the current understanding, and I would love to see it.

This has nothing to do with any alarmist doomsday clocks or whatever else you may want to bring up. What is happening has nothing to do with belief and it has nothing to do with politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaBossIsBack
You would need some evidence to the contrary, then formulate the science of why around it. Then you form predictions and test them based on your observations.

You then write up a paper have it submitted to a journal and get it scrutinized. That is what you need to do deny the current understanding, and I would love to see it.

This has nothing to do with any alarmist doomsday clocks or whatever else you may want to bring up. What is happening has nothing to do with belief and it has nothing to do with politics.

I agree that it has nothing to do with beliefs or politics, you're the one that keeps saying it. No where in these posts have I mentioned anything about one party or the other, but like temps around the World you assumed the info you wanted.
 
You would need some evidence to the contrary, then formulate the science of why around it. Then you form predictions and test them based on your observations.

.

There IS evidence to the contrary. You won't accept it. Look at the raw data compared to the adjusted data. Take a look at the satellite data compared to ground based data. You don't get to say "nothing is absolute" to disprove my point and then say "settled science" to prove yours.

I have never claimed to be a scientist, doubt you guys are either, but I do understand human nature, and greed, and the need for a government to control it's people.
 
Tell me about big governments need to push for ANTHROPOGENIC global warming and for what reason they do that.
 
Just as you refuse to discuss government efforts to seize advantage of an opportunity to gain added control of it's populace, or the amount of money available to those that study AGW and back the government claims.
 
I agree that it has nothing to do with beliefs or politics, you're the one that keeps saying it. No where in these posts have I mentioned anything about one party or the other, but like temps around the World you assumed the info you wanted.

You can't possibly be as obtuse as your last few posts, so I'm going to move on I guess. It was against my better judgement to participate in this thread anyway. Go cats.

There IS evidence to the contrary. You won't accept it. Look at the raw data compared to the adjusted data. Take a look at the satellite data compared to ground based data. You don't get to say "nothing is absolute" to disprove my point and then say "settled science" to prove yours.

I have never claimed to be a scientist, doubt you guys are either, but I do understand human nature, and greed, and the need for a government to control it's people.

I've still yet to see this evidence, and science is such incidentally that if you were able to get convincing evidence then you would have something. My degree is in physics, though I am not a scientist I do read articles like the phys.org one posted earlier frequently. Those articles link to the actual papers published and the data and have absolutely nothing to do with politics. My scientific background is such that I can read such papers with some degree of competence.

My opinion is based entirely on the evidence and enough competence to interpret it. Yours is based on your feelings of human nature, your political leanings, and your distrust of government. Whenever the argument trended there I've tried to bring it back to the science. what you've brought questioning the data is not sufficient to decrease the high probability that man is affecting the climate negatively.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Supreme Lord Z
You mean "affecting" the climate negatively. If you've yet to see the evidence then you've yet to do any in depth reading or study of the situation at all.

Look fellas, I want to believe the scientists, I want science to be free from outside influence. I believe in the big bang, and evolution. I believe in carbon and uranium dating. I know why a nuclear plant cannot blow up like an atomic bomb. I also know that the temp quoted to me on the nightly news from the airport is usually 5 to 8 degrees warmer than the thermometer at my house. I live about 25 miles from there, straight line.

I know that there is a lot of "infilling" by computers for areas of the Earth that are not covered by terrestrial instrumentation. These figures are historically higher than the satellite data.

If you assimilate all of the available information, including leaked emails that spell it all out, how can you maintain 100% certainty?
 
I beat you by a few seconds and corrected the typo since I know you look for such things.

It is probable that I speak 3 languages better than you speak one if that is the kind of human nature you are looking for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Supreme Lord Z
Current prevailing scientific wisdom - "Climate change is real. We can prove it."

Old prevailing scientific wisdom - "The earth is flat. We can prove it."

Not only have we known that the Earth was round since antiquity, the circumference was measured to within about 15% of the actual size about 2250 years ago. Try again.
 
The supposed scandal about temperature adjustments was yet another phony. If you look at only temperature graphs of the continental United States, it looks like adjustments have created a warming trend that doesn't really exist. But the US is a small part of the world's surface, and across the world these adjustments have brought some temperature records up and some down. Overall, the effect on the global temperature is small.

slide1.jpg

Source
 
Cro, You are literally the only person in this thread bringing up politics, perhaps it's you that lets politics guide there decision making.

You believe without a doubt the climate is rapidly changing and man is responsible? Z or Ganner feel free to reply as well.
 
I think there is a large preponderance of evidence supporting our current understandings of the mechanisms of anthropogenic global warming. It is highly probable that man is having a substantial negative effect, how bad of an effect or when/if there we'll be catastrophic events I really don't know.

When you start talking Obama this China that you are talking politics. I posted an opinion article by an astrophysicist that made the point that the science is independent of political ideology and I have tried to reiterate that point.

I apologize in advance for any typos or auto correct errors produced by my iPad. Be happy the iPad is giving you correct punctuation; posts made from my computer you won't get that as it slows down my wpm.
 
Hey, I agree with you on the typos and iPad, things have a mind of their own.

As far as Obama and China, it was a ridiculous deal made simply for fluff. I would say the same if a republican had made it. We're gonna cut back even more, which we would've done anyway, and in 20 years China might. It's bad for the average US citizen in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SomeDudeCRO
Ten years ago Al Gore told us in his famous movie, that we had ten years to stop global warming or it would be too late. Those ten years came and went as of this month. Al is not alone, here are some other famous alarmists who were terrribley wrong:

1. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming
World leaders meeting at the Vatican last week issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”

Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis will likely reiterate that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.

But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference this year is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming… since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.

2. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”
When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”


Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

3. President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming
When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

In 2012, the United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.” I wonder what they now think about their predictions?

4. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?
In 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

5. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth
2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

Brown has been booted out of office since then. I wonder what he’d say about global warming today?

6. Let’s not forget Prince Charles’s warning we only had 96 months to save the planet
It’s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” So the world apparently only has 26 months left to stave off an utter catastrophe.

7. The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world
Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

Well, it’s 2015 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

8. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green
Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”

In 2002, about 930 million people around the world were undernourished, according to U.N. data. by 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.

9. The “tipping point” warning first started in 1989
In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That prediction didn’t come true 15 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.
 
IT'S GOING TO BE 66 DEGREES TOMORROW IN JANUARY AND EVEN WARMER ON MONDAY HERE IN AL GORE LAND OF NASHVILLE TENNESSEE. HE WAS RIGHT AND ALL THE SNOW HAS MELTED AND THE GROUND IS ABOUT TO SWELL UP WITH THE FLOODS AND THE HEAT WILL CAUSE FAMINES, DEATHS AND THE SWARMS OF LOCUSTS WILL RISE OUT OF THE GROUND AND EAT US ALL!!! GIVE ALL OF YOUR MONEY TO AL GORE AND THE UN AND MALAYSIAN CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AND WE WILL BE SAVED.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymmot31
I guess there was global warming in 1903 as well...that was the year of the record high on February 2.
 
Are you under the impression that the abnormally cold temperatures coupled with historic amounts of snow go toward proving man made global warming is just a thinly veiled attempt by our government to extract more money from us and to gain more control over us?

If you do, I believe you are mistaken. It was just weather. Don't feel bad though, the people that call 2015 the hottest year on record because of a statistically irrelevant increase of .02°F are just as far off base.

The next time someone tells you about oil companies pumping money into the "climate deniers" pockets, remind them that NASA, the source of the measurements, is a subsidiary of the US Commerce Dept. Not only does the government have more money than all the oil companies combined, by nature they are required to increase power to sustain control. What better way to achieve this goal? Tax the people for nature being nature.
Actually, this Winter has been on the whole warmer than normal. The heaviest of snowfalls happen when the temperature is close to 32F. Colder air can't hold as much moisture as warmer air.

BTW the historical monthly avg temps for January in Lexington are 41 for a high and 25 for a low. Month to date Lexington has averaged 42 and 25. With highs predicted to be 58 and 59 and lows of 45 and 47 this weekend those averages are only going up.
 
The Obama Admin. recently made a deal with the world's largest carbon emitter (China) whereby they will continue to increase their carbon emissions until 2030. After 2030, then China will try to cut back somewhat. That would indicate that all these people talking about us being at or having passed a tipping point are full of crap.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ible_fortunately_it_doesnt_matter_124658.html
 
Last edited:
You can't even tell the difference between politics and science.

You don't even realize that when it comes to global warming/climate change, the two have been heavily intertwined. Nearly all of the proposed solutions to the "problem" are political via taxation and control over lifestyle. Those solutions do little to reduce emissions put do generate more revenue for more big government.
 
Last edited:
If you have a Hurricane and some jackass raises gas prices to $9 a gallon does that mean the Hurricane wasn't real?
 
The science behind the biology of evolution is independent of religion, yet those two are just as intertwined. It doesn't matter how much a creationist speaks about whichever religion he happens to prefer over the others, it doesn't change the validity of the science.

You can point to inconsistencies but you have to come up with a reason to explain all the consistencies. The inconsistencies are usually explained later
 
  • Like
Reactions: Supreme Lord Z
No where have I said that climate change isn't happening. I am not going to argue with the data (provided it is impartially taken). What I don't agree with are the wild predictions and wrong conclusions that some scientists have come up with. All this tipping point hysteria is bullcrap and leftist politicians are using it to promote higher taxation and more control of our lives. You two can buy into it if you want. If China (the world's biggest emitter) doesn't need to worry about lowering carbon emissions until 2030, then neither do I.
 
We could do more with China, wave a bigger stick or a sweeter carrot, but no matter what we should at least try to be better than them.

All the political failures and no teeth resolutions and accords and all the other bs is exacerbated by the fact that the politicians can't agree on anything. There are indeed some things we should all agree on and this is probably one of them.
 
The CO2 that we put into the air is not naturally occurring. Correct? Neither are cities. Why take temperature readings in areas that are covered in unnatural surfaces like concrete and asphalt? Aren't there enough places we can put a thermometer where the reading will not be skewed by an unnatural forcing? Is there a good reason why someone didn't decide a long time ago that it would be better to take unadulterated readings rather than adjust the readings?

Ganner, we can all read the emails and see what they say. Doesn't matter how someone tries to make us think they meant something else.

Al Gores "experiment" that pumped CO2 into a jar and heated it with an infrared lamp was proven to be faked. Why? Why fake it? Bill Nye tried to play it off, but he narrated the thing, he knew it didn't prove squat.

One fact that cannot be argued is that CO2, at its highest level, comprises a mere 4/10,000ths of our troposphere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vandalayindustries
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT