Global Warming?

[toppop52]

How is it that you are more qualified to interpret climatological data than climatologists? The explanation given in that paper passed peer review at a major climate science journal. What are your credentials?

Face it, we are all amateurs here. When acknowledging that it seems reasonable to defer to mainstream science. If there is a significant disagreement amongst climatologists that is one thing but there is not disagreement. They appear to have a consensus.

Understanding of new data sometimes takes a while. Certainly we reverse course in medicine not infrequently but rarely is the second interpretation of data less accurate than the original.

Ignoring a consensus primarily because it conflicts with a political view is not scientific skepticism. You are starting to sound like the pollsters trying to ignore consensus data in order to predict a different outcome.

Did you read it? It said that there WAS northern hemisphere cooling over the period, but southern hemisphere warming compensted for it, thus in their opinion creating a balance or slight warming. However if they, you or anyone has actually studied ice ages you will clearly see that the southern hemisphere almost always warmed a similar amount relative to the degree of cooling in the north and that often near the equator to about the tropics was warmer than normal. Since that was normal based on historical evidence of events, it would appear that the cooling in the north/warming in the south of the 50's-70's typical.

 

[IslandTractor]

Really?????? I think maybe I had better move on.

I hope Noah doesn't get drawn into the discussion again.

 

[turnkey4099]

I hope Noah doesn't get drawn into the discussion again.

Exactly!! Let's stick with the science evidence and let the deniers distort and lie about it.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

I hope Noah doesn't get drawn into the discussion again.

Exactly!! Let's stick with the science evidence and let the deniers distort and lie about it.

Harry K

 

[Renze]

I hope Noah doesn't get drawn into the discussion again.

Exactly!! Let's stick with the science evidence and let the deniers distort and lie about it.

Harry K

In Arab countries they still stonify "deniers". And 400 years ago Rome called deniers "heretics" and burnt them.

I dont like your attitude at all, throughout history it has given lots of trouble: absolutism is a threat to our freedom, whether its islamic, catholic or scientific.

p.s. feel free to dislike mine: its your liberal right

 

[IslandTractor]

In Arab countries they still stonify "deniers"

absolutism is a threat to our freedom, whether its islamic, catholic or scientific.

Baloney. Religious extremism may indeed cause irremediable conflict between people but science always resolves its conflicts with data and moves forward. Religious absolutists frequently resort to violence and war as they are by definition backward looking and unable to change key tenets of their belief system. Scientists often disagree but I don't recall any bloody battles fought over data or hypotheses.

 

[EE_Bota]

Very - Very true. Climate change is reality that naysayers deny and do not believe is occurring. Naysayers believe the environmental climate on earth today is as it has always been and as it will always be, regardless of what we do or have done.

Nay!

Totally false straw man argument.

I deny the agenda promoted by the AGW proponents. The climate, which is always a changing component of the planet, is the plaything USED for the purpose of pushing the real purpose... The liberal agenda.

I deny the agenda's reasons for climate change.

I do not know anyone who thinks the climate is, or ever has been, unchanging.

For someone slamming the opposition for denying facts, you completely misstate the opposition's viewpoint...either misunderstanding or disregarding the facts.

Facts aren't the real issue though. It's the agenda.

Yay!

 

[EE_Bota]

They were probably neocons dressed as scientists...can fool anyone....if he is conservative enough!

LOOK OUT! There's a neocon behind you! :confused2:

 

[EE_Bota]

Exactly!! Let's stick with the science evidence and let the deniers distort and lie about it.

Harry K

And let's all be as even-handed and civil like the example above. ^

 

[RobertBrown]

So .....Ya think it's over? Global Warming?
Must be!

For the first time in sixteen months, the contiguous U.S. has had a month with below-average temperatures, with October 2012 ranking as the 44th coldest (73rd warmest) October since record keeping began in 1895, said NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in their latest State of the Climate report. Temperature extremes were scarce in October, as no states had a top-ten warmest or coldest October.