Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) (sci.geo.meteorology) For the discussion of meteorology and related topics. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 25, 11:44*pm, netvegetable wrote:
Pretty amazing scam, given that it's got about 82% of scientists and pretty much every reputable scientific organisation on the planet to pay along with it. And yes, it IS a pretty amazing scam! I guess you are talking about the 82% of the scientists who have contacts or get paid by government or big corporate money who don't want to lose their jobs... And just which scientific organizations do you consider "reputable"? Let's take a poll. Just how many of those organizations have actually surveyed their membership for opinions on AGW and How many have just stated the opinions of the leadership at the top as if it were the opinion of all the members? Um. 0% to 100% perhaps? Spin, spin and more spin. |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:27:15 -0700, Benj wrote:
On Jul 25, 11:44Â*pm, netvegetable wrote: Pretty amazing scam, given that it's got about 82% of scientists and pretty much every reputable scientific organisation on the planet to pay along with it. And yes, it IS a pretty amazing scam! Excellent! A conspiracy theorist who's out the closet (unlike most climate change deniers). I guess you are talking about the 82% of the scientists who have contacts or get paid by government or big corporate money who don't want to lose their jobs... I'm sure some of them might well have contacts in government. So what? And just which scientific organizations do you consider "reputable"? Can you name a single reputable scientific organisation that disputes the theory of anthropogenic climate change? If you can I will edit the wiki page for you. http://tinyurl.com/y67qrl Let's take a poll. Just how many of those organizations have actually surveyed their membership for opinions on AGW and How many have just stated the opinions of the leadership at the top as if it were the opinion of all the members? Um. 0% to 100% perhaps? Yeah. So what? -- "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."- John Stuart Mill http://regruntled.wordpress.com/ |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:22:57 -0700, Benj wrote:
On Jul 25, 11:41Â*pm, netvegetable wrote: Now you've shifted your ground to conceding that it's real, but that it's some kind of natural phenomenon that you can't explain. And also, that it's mysteriously disappeared (which you also can't explain). Obviously we are all in luck that you CAN explain it all. Sure. Modern global warming is not a natural phenomenon at all, but the result of a build up in the atmosphere of man made greenhouse gases, which has enhanced the greenhouse effect. This is according to the science, as well as the overwhelming majority of scientists. It's simple: There is not enough money being taken out of everyone's electric bill to properly stop AGW. Simple. Plausible. and lies. -- "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."- John Stuart Mill http://regruntled.wordpress.com/ |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Climate change "science" has never predicted anything correctly.
Its not "science" until it has been tested. "netvegetable" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:27:15 -0700, Benj wrote: On Jul 25, 11:44 pm, netvegetable wrote: Pretty amazing scam, given that it's got about 82% of scientists and pretty much every reputable scientific organisation on the planet to pay along with it. And yes, it IS a pretty amazing scam! Excellent! A conspiracy theorist who's out the closet (unlike most climate change deniers). I guess you are talking about the 82% of the scientists who have contacts or get paid by government or big corporate money who don't want to lose their jobs... I'm sure some of them might well have contacts in government. So what? And just which scientific organizations do you consider "reputable"? Can you name a single reputable scientific organisation that disputes the theory of anthropogenic climate change? If you can I will edit the wiki page for you. http://tinyurl.com/y67qrl Let's take a poll. Just how many of those organizations have actually surveyed their membership for opinions on AGW and How many have just stated the opinions of the leadership at the top as if it were the opinion of all the members? Um. 0% to 100% perhaps? Yeah. So what? -- "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."- John Stuart Mill http://regruntled.wordpress.com/ |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:54:36 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
Climate change "science" has never predicted anything correctly. Its not "science" until it has been tested. How about the prediction that as CO2 in atmosphere increases, global temperatures will rise? That seems to have worked out correctly. http://tinyurl.com/cq9pz8 http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy -- "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."- John Stuart Mill http://regruntled.wordpress.com/ |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "netvegetable" wrote in message ... On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:54:36 +1000, Peter Webb wrote: Climate change "science" has never predicted anything correctly. Its not "science" until it has been tested. How about the prediction that as CO2 in atmosphere increases, global temperatures will rise? That seems to have worked out correctly. http://tinyurl.com/cq9pz8 http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy Unfortunately, it appears the opposite - as temperatures rise, then do CO2 levels do as well. And this is not a "prediction" of climate science, the changes in earths atmosphere and climate (and for that matter sea level height) were known long before the "science" was developed. Contrary to the Gore's predictions, the sky is not falling in. Please refrain from panic. Please leave your ETS at the door. |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 24, 2:37*am, addinall wrote:
On Jul 24, 11:47*am, netvegetable wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:30:10 -0700, addinall wrote: So what drives the SOI? -- "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."- John Stuart Mill http://regruntled.wordpress.com/-Hidequoted text - - Show quoted text - Good question. *I'd love to have the money to research the thing. *I have a curious 'feeling' that it has a lot to do with the convection cycles of magma (which we know little about)and the heat exchange from magma to the ocean. It has **** all to do with CO2 at any rate. So why the almost perfect correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature? http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy Cherry picking date ranges will do the trick.And everyone is aware that if this planet gets a little warmer, the sea outgasses some percentage of CO2. *Shrug. *I have been telling people that this is (global warming) pure kiddology for two decades. *Perhaps the world is catching up with me again. I remember some years ago when I made a rather BOLD statement in here that went along the lines of 'SADDHAM HUSSEIN HAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'. *I was taken to task over that because the 'concensus' amongst the 'analysts' in t' whole wide wurld sed there was. *I read the volumes of paper published by the UN after Gulf I and couldn't figure out why 99.999999% of the analysts in the world hadn't figured out something ****ing glaringly obvious. Same deal here. *It is getting COLDER again. *That worries me. *I want to see the planet back up to its comfortable 17C average. *This is waaaaaaayyyyyy to close to a major ice age event. *And since we don't have any nukes, it might ge awful nippy in the mornings hey? If one was to be bothered enough to visit a library, and loiter around 551.x, one may notice that this planet fluctuates between 12C and 22C at regular intervals. *Pushing a million, trillion, squillion dollars at the weather is not going to change that one eensy-weeny bit. Canute demonstrated this to the people of Briton. Mark Addinall- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - When glaciers stop disappearing and the arctic ices over again to what it was 20 years ago I'll start believing it is cooling. Harry K |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:42:26 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
"netvegetable" wrote in message ... On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:54:36 +1000, Peter Webb wrote: Climate change "science" has never predicted anything correctly. Its not "science" until it has been tested. How about the prediction that as CO2 in atmosphere increases, global temperatures will rise? That seems to have worked out correctly. http://tinyurl.com/cq9pz8 http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy Unfortunately, it appears the opposite - as temperatures rise, then do CO2 levels do as well. And who told you that? -- "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."- John Stuart Mill http://regruntled.wordpress.com/ |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:29:31 -0700, harry k wrote:
When glaciers stop disappearing and the arctic ices over again to what it was 20 years ago I'll start believing it is cooling. I'd be open minded if they simply provided some evidence. But selectively drawing lines from 1998 to 2008, for instance, doesn't really shine a light on anything except their own bias. Nor does narrowing down the sample from 2005 to 2008. -- "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."- John Stuart Mill http://regruntled.wordpress.com/ |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
SOI, Not CO2, Drives Global Temperature | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
SOI, Not CO2, Drives Global Temperature | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
SOI, Not CO2, Drives Global Temperature | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
What drives precipitation on Florida? | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Actual rain and the SOI | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) |