Global Warming?

[Rainbody]

Google hockey stick graph there's plenty all over the web about your graph there.

You can select your choice of messenger. I would of posted the link from theblaze but I'm sure some would have chest pain from that site.
I found this one to be interesting.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

There's some great graphs about warm medieval time.

Here is an excerpt I found applies

This is a direct criticism of `scientism', a belief held by many scientists that knowledge not acquired by professional scientists is knowledge not worth having. Scientism is an affront to free people everywhere as it denies the right of the public to judge the work of science, even where this work is funded from taxpayer's money. It is a formula that holds scientists above criticism, and unaccountable to anyone but their own peers. It is an anti-democratic view of the world and is clearly opposed by the National Academy.

We were discussing mans influence. I'll help stay on topic rather than discuss the last 8 billion years of evolving climate. Earths been hotter, colder, wetter, drier, ect.
Don't be fooled by someone pushing "science" when there's a mandatory product to purchase afterwards.

 

[Dustier]

Rainbody - You seem to have an issue with "science" because it makes verifiable conclusions. Your criticism of "scientific evidence" rests on some peculiar notion of it being not politically challenged - a rather bizarre position to take on science. Frankly, politicians no longer represent anything other than corporate interests for the sake of cash and thus can't be taken seriously when making claims based on verifiable facts.

Like toppop52, though, your assumptions and your references provide more support for Climate Change than not.

 

[crash325]

Rainbody - You seem to have an issue with "science" because it makes verifiable conclusions. Your criticism of "scientific evidence" rests on some peculiar notion of it being not politically challenged - a rather bizarre position to take on science. Frankly, politicians no longer represent anything other than corporate interests for the sake of cash and thus can't be taken seriously when making claims based on verifiable facts.

Like toppop52, though, your assumptions and your references provide more support for Climate Change than not.

I was reading you full page post and it started off with facts, then shortly became pure BS.

When I got to the part about CO2 acidifying the oceans it was time to quit. Just maybe a Real Scientist would know that Sulfur Dioxide would know that is the acid problem.

 

[Rainbody]

Ill put it as bluntly as I can.
I will continue to be high skeptical of any one trying change my life and freedoms when they are routinely caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

I do however encourage you to pass whatever legislation in your state, you feel would solve the global warming threat you hold so dear. But when you realize that you no longer own property, your very breath is regulated, and there's a permit process for having a child, you will not be welcome hide in my barn or seek refugee status in a sovereign body still free.

Please dig throw the data, look at the model, ask questions. You'll find holes and strange conversations/emails. Imagine the Koch brothers are behind it and be that skeptical.
Don't be someone's useful idiot.

 

[turnkey4099]

It just Snowed in Africa for the first time in over 100 years.

Must be part of the Global Warming.

wow! Amazing! No snow has fallen on those high mountains with glaciers in over 100 years. Whoda thunk it.

Harry K

 

[mostly_gas]

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is not unprovable. It is known to exist because it can be shown and measured in a lab in a bounded system. In a comparatively unbounded system such as presented by the earth there are just too many other things happening for anyone to separate out the effect with surety. They can only focus on the correlation and explore how well it hangs together.

Okay if "they" know what the effect of CO2 is, why is it so hard to find? How many know or suspected greenhouse factors are there. Of that number how many have been studied? That's where Design of Experiments comes into play. When dealing with a large number of unknowns proper DOE will make the unmanageable manageable. Genichi Taguchi is one of many authors that have written on the subject if you wish to read up.

 

[Rainbody]

http://mobile.usnews.com/news/blogs...st-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

Thought I'd share this in reference to CO2 discussion.

 

[toppop52]

Like toppop52, though, your assumptions and your references provide more support for Climate Change than not.

No, you really need to be checking your sources. Muller, the great changer of mind, is about as tepid and lukewarm an AGW convert as you can find! I suspect his paycheck coming through Berkley from the state of CA has more to do with his "change", than anything. He says that AGW, has had a "tiny" effect and that current weather is just that weather, not a product of AGW at all, and that maybe the warming could speed up. Now there is a real hard core supporter! And you , guys just keep citing what a big deal he is!:laughing:

 

[EE_Bota]

Rainbody - You seem to have an issue with "science" because it makes verifiable conclusions. Your criticism of "scientific evidence" rests on some peculiar notion of it being not politically challenged - a rather bizarre position to take on science. Frankly, politicians no longer represent anything other than corporate interests for the sake of cash and thus can't be taken seriously when making claims based on verifiable facts.

Like toppop52, though, your assumptions and your references provide more support for Climate Change than not.

If we accept that, the funding for any research that could possibly offend big business would have to come almost exclusively from private parties, and only from those private parties who believe AGW may be true, and is actionable, and worth fighting. Is this really the case?

 

[turnkey4099]

If we accept that, the funding for any research that could possibly offend big business would have to come almost exclusively from private parties, and only from those private parties who believe AGW may be true, and is actionable, and worth fighting. Is this really the case?

This long running discussion proves, once again, that the denialists will not believe in agw until both ice caps are gone and they are treading water.

Fact. Natural causes have warmed and cooled the planet over the ages.

Fact. We are in an interglacial period.

Fact. The current warming is proceeding far faster than any records show for the past and is accelerating.

Conclusion (mine) - something more than nature is at work..

Harry K