Global Warming?

[2LaneCruzer]

For you AGW believers, start putting pressure on the world to put pressure on China, India, South American and African countries as well as Eastern Eurpopean countries, they are the ones doing the lion's share of polluting. No point in squeezing our industry to death just so the work can go overseas to worse polluters.

You know Randy, as I see it, you have just pointed out the biggest problem with the AGW debate...politics. Advocates on both sides (not necessarily the scientists, but they are guilty of this too) eagerly jump into the political debate Re: what ought to be done about it. To me, it is just about as absurd to totally disregard the argument for AGW as it is to implement draconian measures without more. More importantly, advocacy of politicians is OFTEN full of logical holes, irrational arguments and just plain BS such that they no longer have credibility. This solves no problems, just leaves everyone unconvinced of anything. Both sides have their agenda, and it overshadows the science and colors any conclusions we can draw therefrom.

 

[IslandTractor]

This Daily Mail piece episode is a great example of why you should not get your science information from tabloids. Will the deniers be quoting the National Enquirer next?

I don't know who the journalist is but he is clearly a hack looking to grab a headline. And, SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE , the dittoheads bought it hook line and sinker.

Just look at the article in detail and it makes little sense. How could a big data set support the notion of AGW for several decades and then adding a few more years data suddenly destroys the theory? Ever heard of background noise or random variation? Ever thought of waiting for critical review and perspective before swallowing the bait? If Babe Ruth goes 0 for 5 in a given game after years of slugging, do you leap to the conclusion that he is washed up?

The dittohead cheering section here (Top, Rain, Cat, Slash, Brin ? Others (sorry Bota you don't qualify as you actual make well reasoned posts and we need a few good skeptics)) will undoubtedly continue to cite this tabloid piece for years as "proof" there is no AGW. What it really shows is how gullible people are when their minds are made up and then simply seek affirmation rather than to consider any new data scientifically. I am quite sure we will hear this hack job news piece quoted on Rush Radio and the like for some time.

 

[k0ua]

The dittohead cheering section here Top, Rain, Cat, Slash, Brin

Excuse me, you have hurt my feelings by not including me in the ditto-head cheering section. I have been a ditto-head for over 20 years, and I think I am due the respect and acknowledgement that my faithfulness implies.

James K0UA

 

[IslandTractor]

The dittohead cheering section here Top, Rain, Cat, Slash, Brin

Excuse me, you have hurt my feelings by not including me in the ditto-head cheering section. I have been a ditto-head for over 20 years, and I think I am due the respect and acknowledgement that my faithfulness implies.

James K0UA

As a fellow Kioti owner I was cutting you a break! Don't tell the others or they will accuse me of being biased.

 

[/pine]

This Daily Mail piece episode is a great example of why you should not get your science information from tabloids. Will the deniers be quoting the National Enquirer next?

I don't know who the journalist is but he is clearly a hack looking to grab a headline. And, SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE , the dittoheads bought it hook line and sinker.

Just look at the article in detail and it makes little sense. How could a big data set support the notion of AGW for several decades and then adding a few more years data suddenly destroys the theory? Ever heard of background noise or random variation? Ever thought of waiting for critical review and perspective before swallowing the bait? If Babe Ruth goes 0 for 5 in a given game after years of slugging, do you leap to the conclusion that he is washed up?

The dittohead cheering section here (Top, Rain, Cat, Slash, Brin ? Others (sorry Bota you don't qualify as you actual make well reasoned posts and we need a few good skeptics)) will undoubtedly continue to cite this tabloid piece for years as "proof" there is no AGW. What it really shows is how gullible people are when their minds are made up and then simply seek affirmation rather than to consider any new data scientifically. I am quite sure we will hear this hack job news piece quoted on Rush Radio and the like for some time.

Shows what you (just think) you know...:laughing:

This is nothing but rhetorical drivel that misguided liberals cite anytime someone from the right makes any type of conservative statement....you misguided buffoons cite FNC or any of the conservative pundits as the source...it's nothing but a security blanket for you misguided souls...too funny...

FYI...pinhead...I probably have not heard more than 10 minutes worth of Limbaugh's commentary in however long he has been on the air....I did not even know what a "dittohead" was until I recently Googled it...!

It's typical for pinheads and the misguided to stereotype anyone that hoses them with conservative logic or reasoning...they just can't seem to fathom it and the stereotyping is nothing but a defense mechanism (AKA security blanky) :laughing:

 

[houstonscott]

Just wondering. After the latest study taking all the science, the conclusion is no warming in last 16 years. No tread change in over 1000 years. Have any of you who believed in GW still believe. You claim to agree with the science if you do than you must consider the science. My question is has anyone's mind been changed and do you have guts to admit it here in public.

HS

 

[k0ua]

As a fellow Kioti owner I was cutting you a break! Don't tell the others or they will accuse me of being biased.

Well OK. I feel some better now...I just didn't understand why I didn't make the list, I guess I am good with the preferential treatment, We will try to keep that quiet!

James K0UA

 

[EE_Bota]

Hey, those water molecules have been around since the time of the dinosaurs so they are indeed "fossil water".

As I am sure you know, there is such a thing called fossil water. The Ogallala is considered fossil, and therefore considered non-renewable. I would submit that it is also sequestered potential water vapor, which was implied by my earlier post.

Fossil water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tcreeley]

New NCDC Map puts Months into Historical Perspective - Climate Change - AccuWeather.com



How Did September Temperatures Rank Globally?
October 08, 2012; 5:17 PM
September 2012 was unofficially the 5th warmest September in the satellite record, which began in 1979, according to Remote Sensing Systems (RSS).
RSS measures lower tropospheric temperatures using microwave sounding instrumentation on board satellites. Globally (70 degrees S. to 82.5 N.), September 2012 averaged 0.383 degrees C. or 0.689 degrees F. above normal.
This September 2012 temperature anomaly is the highest since September 2010 and likely reflects the loss of the cooling influence from the recent double-barrel La Nina as temperature anomalies have resumed the upward trend this year.
For the continental USA the temperature anomaly was +0.277 C or +0.499 F.
The northern Hemisphere was quite warm compared to normal, averaging +0.451 C or 0.812 F. for September 2012.
How Did September Temperatures Rank Globally? - Climate Change - AccuWeather.com

---these are good reading as well, 16 years ago it ended....that's a laugh!
--http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/how-warm-was-the-northern-hemi/73849

--http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/study-links-climate-science-de/74790
Study Links Climate Science Denial to acceptance of Conspiracy Theories
September 17, 2012

 

[IslandTractor]

As I am sure you know, there is such a thing called fossil water. The Ogallala is considered fossil, and therefore considered non-renewable. I would submit that it is also sequestered potential water vapor, which was implied by my earlier post.

Fossil water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, didn't know that and it's news to me. Interesting.