Global Warming?

[toppop52]

Sorry Top, Dr Frank is a flyweight has been with no more understanding of the science behind AGW than the typical boobilious weather girl on TV. He has never done climate research after leaving NHC about 25 years ago and is now simply a TV personality far out of touch with hard climate science. If he is one of the "skeptics" he defends then that doesn't speak well of the qualifications and experience of skeptics. His reiteration of the absurd point that "CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life" is a bizarre non argument that seems designed to capture the attention of non scientists like yourself who have muddled ideas and are prone to uncritically accept catch phrases. What a stupid remark. No climate scientist, regardless of their opinion on AGW, would ever state such an absurd point and expect to be taken seriously.

Find us an anti AGW scientist who actually publishes RESEARCH, not op ed pieces in political blogs. Is that asking too much?

I bet Dr. Frank would find your opinion of one of the preeminent climate /weather scientists of the late twentieth century, and by far one of the most accurate in his future predictions, hilarious. Unlike your AGW guys that have spent 40 years wobbling from Ice Age, to Arctic sauna.
However I understand that your talking points require you to mud-sling anyone that disagrees. It really just makes you appear asinine and petty, or maybe it's more than appearance, I don't know and don't care. And until your AGW scientific credentials are proven, your opinion is as valuable as mine or Mork from Ork. By the way, the NHC's highest award is the "Neil Frank Award".

 

[toppop52]

And then the myth that "All scientists of stature agree with AGW"

Nature Magazine, the academic journal that introduced the world to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently the human genome, is set to publish a paper in June that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for only 5-10% of observed warming on Earth.

As explained by the paper’s author Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, “The climate is warming, yes, but not because of greenhouse gases.”

For the preeminent scientific journal in the world to publish Kauppinen’s work shows conclusively that Al Gore’s much touted “scientific consensus” supporting human-caused global warming is a myth.

 

[EE_Bota]

Take your pick:

Mayte Carranco Hot Mexican Weather Girl - YouTube

Weather Girl - Romanian Women Hot Presenter Romania - YouTube

La muy caliente Jackie Guerridooooo - YouTube

Weather Girl - Romanian Girls TV Presenter Rumania - YouTube

very sexy weather news from hungary - YouTube (my favorite, she has the legs to go with the rest)

I watched until I learned all of their languages, and I found them all to be intellectually gifted, particularly the third one.

 

[/pine]

Your stance is absolutely anti intellectual and unscientific. You are trying to justify taking no action on climate policy because you claim there is an incomplete understanding of the issue. I suppose you disapprove of cancer therapy because we do not fully understand the nature of tumors. Or, perhaps we should not bake pies because the ultimate nature of matter still eludes us?

Your stance on insufficient science is a smoke screen to cover the fact that you have virtually no credible evidence to counter the mass of climate science that does support AGW. I keep asking and none of you right wing deniers has ever posted a science paper in support of your position. We get ridiculous blog quotes and hare brained journalist links but NOTHING from those "thousands" of PhDs who dispute AGW. Put up or shut up.

And all we get from you is the rhetorically rehashed scientific "findings" and a boatload of blather...

It will be yet to exist or perfected technology that will most likely shed enough light on the topic that will prove things one way or the other...NOT rehashing and re-figuring the same insufficient data that is currently available...like the rush to judgement cultists (that includes many "scientists") are doing...

...Again...When will you realize that there is not enough data to remove the dichotomy and prove the effect one way or the other...Why would those that already realize this fact try to prove (i.e., publish science papers) differently?...like the the AGW cultists have...There is only so much data that is quite lacking in revelation...and they also know that ONLY TIME will reveal the facts one way or the other...But the AGW cultists continue to use the same insufficient data in any way they can to push the agenda that that is funding them and their research...

My stance/opinion is that both sufficient data and sufficient science is what is lacking...not that they (scientists) won't be able to come up with indisputable proof (one way or the other) once more knowledge becomes available and is realized....your opinion of my stance is based solely on ignorance and stereotyping anyone that posts a polar opinion of the AGW cultists...

just curious....(hypothetically asking) for the sake of the dispute....let's say in the next 15 years or so (about the length of time it would take to significantly reduce the man made emissions (US only) etc.) the current trend completely reverses itself and we start hearing about "global cooling"....What will it say/do to the scientific community...?...can you say "The Boy that Cried Wolf" ?...or will you be saying "I told you so" and be giving credit to a fraction of powers for saving the planet?

blather on oh toothless one...!

 

[RobertBrown]

And then the myth that "All scientists of stature agree with AGW"

Do us all a favor and post a link to this "article". I for one would like to read the report. This post is a waste of our time otherwise.

 

[/pine]

Do us all a favor and post a link to this "article". I for one would like to the report. This post is a waste of our time otherwise.

:laughing: Are you trying to usurp the title of AGW omnipotent now? otherwise how do you speak for "us all" or deem "our time" as something you are capable of opining over...?

BTW...the glasses (or your posts) don't make you come across any smarter than you've already proven you aren't...(although "us all" may not be privy to the idiocy you posted in a previous reply and deleted after you realized how stupid it was...)

Try putting a pencil behind your ear...:laughing:

 

[RobertBrown]

:laughing: Are you trying to usurp the title of AGW omnipotent now? otherwise how do you speak for "us all" or deem "our time" as something you are capable of opining over...?



BTW...the glasses (or your posts) don't make you come across any smarter than you've already proven you aren't...(although "us all" may not be privy to the idiocy you posted in a previous reply and deleted after you realized how stupid it was...)

Try putting a pencil behind your ear...:laughing:

I would like to read the article.

I see you're still.......... upset, and no doubt, embarrassed.
That's understandable.......mabye you should take a break and put things back into proper perspective.
:laughing::laughing:

 

[JoeBuyer]

Those in the flat world society believe there is no global warming. Those that have advanced to thinking know that there is global warming and that our society as caused part of it.

 

[RobertBrown]

Those in the flat world society believe there is no global warming. Those that have advanced to thinking know that there is global warming and that our society as caused part of it.

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be". Albert Einstein

:dance1:

 

[EE_Bota]

Those in the flat world society believe there is no global warming. Those that have advanced to thinking know that there is global warming and that our society as caused part of it.

I have never heard of that society before. What planet do they live on?