Global Warming Scam Blown to Smithereens

[bigmack]

Not good news for hcap.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/Globalwarmingstopped16yearsagorevealsMetOfficerepo rtquietlyreleasedandhereisthecharttoproveit-MailOnline.png

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

[boxcar]

Not good news for hcap.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/Globalwarmingstopped16yearsagorevealsMetOfficerepo rtquietlyreleasedandhereisthecharttoproveit-MailOnline.png

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

Wow! Who in their right mind woulda thunk it? Certainly not our own resident Graph-a-Maniac. :D

It's no wonder the MotherEarthers want to re-brand AGW to something else on which they can blame the human race, i.e. overpopulation. I predict we'll be hearing a lot more about this invented crisis fairly soon. They can't keep all the closet eugenicists locked away forever.

Boxcar

[redshift1]

Not good news for hcap.



Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

Cue Also sprach Zarathustra

.

[bigmack]

Cue Also sprach Zarathustra

Gonna roll with the ah Deodato version. EMI Records had them SUPER glossy LP covers. GREAT for seedin'.

zUcHSCAE-AE

[badcompany]

The radical environmental movement was borne by socialists who, rather than admit the dismal failure of their ideology, rationalized that the only reason capitalism didn't fail is because evil capitalists exploit the environment.
If you notice, the only energy sources Marxists support are those which can't be used on a large scale: wind and solar.

[TJDave]

A rebuttal:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/

Of course none of this makes me no nevermind.

I'll be dead and gone.

I could probably get him nominated for a Nobel, though. ;)

[fast4522]

It has always been a scam to redistribute wealth so the bankers would have an even tighter grip around the world. Sure some banks got smoked in the last downturn but the ones owned by the Bilderburg Group have been buying up every acre of farmland and whatever they could amass at a fraction of the cost.

[hcap]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/lying-statistics-global-warming-edition

The graph of the Daily Mail numbers vs the larger picture

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_hadcrut4_1997_2012.jpg

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_hadcrut4_1912_2012.jpg

And from TJ Dave's link. The so-called official org
that supposedly called the whistle on global warming stopping--THEY DID NOT- it was totally misrepresented by the daily mail

[Tom]

Take off your sweater.
Problem solved.

[bigmack]

The graph of the Daily Mail numbers vs the larger picture
You're getting info from K.Drum of MoJones instead of scientists?

Kevin Drum (born October 19, 1958) is a liberal American political blogger and columnist. He was born in Long Beach, California and now lives in Irvine, California.

Drum attended Caltech for two years before transferring to California State University, Long Beach where he received his bachelor's degree in journalism in 1981. While at CSULB he served as city editor of the university's student run newspaper, the Daily 49er.

The PERFECT chump for you to quote/cite. :lol:

[boxcar]

Yeah, But 'cap's graphs are prettier even when blurry. In fact, they're so pretty maybe we can convince him that they'd serve a more practical purpose being entered into beauty pageants. :lol:

Boxcar

[hcap]

The "chump" is the daily mail and those chumpees that bought into the bogus, as usual... ad nauseum crapola.

Box, maybe God is telling all us sinners to GET USED to a hotter environment and lower elevation?

[boxcar]

The "chump" is the daily mail and those chumpees that bought into the bogus, as usual... ad nauseum crapola.

Box, maybe God is telling all us sinners to GET USED to a hotter environment and lower elevation?

If you feel a need to "get used" to hotter environs, move to the equator. But leave the rest of the planet alone.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

The "chump" is the daily mail and those chumpees that bought into the bogus, as usual... ad nauseum crapola.
Yeah, I see Mickey Mann @ Penn State weighed in. He's the BigChief scientist that leads your cult with tree rings. He was just about thrown out of Penn for a host of reasons, but that GW money just kicked-in BIG TIME during the BO years.

Shame that vacuous sound you hear is the deafening silence of so many tuning out you alarmists.

The earths temperatures HAVE ALWAYS been influx. This cult would have you believe MAN is the devil himself.

Don't confuse pollution with GW, or cooling, depending on the trend. They change their tune a lot. Don't you remember, they predicted a pending ice age in the 70's?

Rather than hcap & I go at each other like PeterG against the chicken in FamGuy, spend an hour watching this video sometime. You'll know more than 98% of the people you get into GW conversations with at the water cooler.

YtevF4B4RtQ

Man's effect on temperatures? .00000000000000000000001%.

It's like a car overheating and they blame it on a lugnut. :D

[hcap]

Not good news for hcap.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/Globalwarmingstopped16yearsagorevealsMetOfficerepo rtquietlyreleasedandhereisthecharttoproveit-MailOnline.png

I called you on this. The Daily Mail misrepresented the evidence from the Met Office and is dead wrong. Now that your "Headline" is debunked you say the Earth has always warmed and cooled.

No shit Sherlock

[bigmack]

I called you on this. The Daily Mail misrepresented the evidence from the Met Office and is dead wrong. Now that your "Headline" is debunked you say the Earth has always warmed and cooled.

No shit Sherlock
Stay focused.

Bring us SOUND EVIDENCE temperatures have ESCALATED in the last 16 years. :D

[Tom]

The graph is blurry because they are using fuzzy math!

[Steve R]

Stay focused.

Bring us SOUND EVIDENCE temperatures have ESCALATED in the last 16 years. :D
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/hansen/hansen.html

Fully referenced NASA report including graphics and raw data (land and ocean).

[bigmack]

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/hansen/hansen.html

Fully referenced NASA report including graphics and raw data (land and ocean).
You have to keep up, Steve. That data is FLAWED.

In fact, they had to come out a few years ago and publicly admit their temps are bogus.

Try again. Bring a credible link and choose from any 'prize' in the top two rows.

You like monkeys or frogs?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/TheFTWUltimatePHPAppThrowdownGlobalNerdy.png

[boxcar]

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/hansen/hansen.html

Fully referenced NASA report including graphics and raw data (land and ocean).

Hmm...Global surface temps in 2011 were the ninth warmest? That's kinda down a wee bit from the warmest, wouldn't you say? You gotta find some data that says the planet is warmer than it was in 1880. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Hmm...Global surface temps in 2011 were the ninth warmest? That's kinda down a wee bit from the warmest, wouldn't you say? You gotta find some data that says the planet is warmer than it was in 1880. :rolleyes:

http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/sst_global.jpg

[Tom]

I assume you have the Gage R&R studies and the calibration records for the temperature devices used in the 1800's?

Metrology 101, use only proven measurement systems.
And, while you are at it, was the measurement protocol the same then as it is today, and if not, how was that compensated for in the database?

[badcompany]

I assume you have the Gage R&R studies and the calibration records for the temperature devices used in the 1800's?

Metrology 101, use only proven measurement systems.
And, while you are at it, was the measurement protocol the same then as it is today, and if not, how was that compensated for in the database?

I'm far from a scientist, but, even if all their stats are correct, in a 4 billion + year old planet, is a 200 year sample really enough to prove anything?

[redshift1]

I'm far from a scientist, but, even if all their stats are correct, in a 4 billion + year old planet, is a 200 year sample really enough to prove anything?

Whether you believe in anthropogenic causes or naturally occurring variances, global temperatures are rising and they graph nicely with the onset of the industrial revolution. Draw your own sampling conclusions.

.

[bigmack]

Whether you believe in anthropogenic causes or naturally occurring variances, global temperatures are rising and they graph nicely with the onset of the industrial revolution. Draw your own sampling conclusions.

BS

[badcompany]

Whether you believe in anthropogenic causes or naturally occurring variances, global temperatures are rising and they graph nicely with the onset of the industrial revolution. Draw your own sampling conclusions.



Look at you using a Big Word in the Global Warming Debate!

lAPEpDrNdRo

[Tom]

I'm far from a scientist, but, even if all their stats are correct, in a 4 billion + year old planet, is a 200 year sample really enough to prove anything?

No, but I just like rile him up every so often! :lol:

Maybe the industrial revolution started because the weather was getting warmer. Maybe as we armed up, our health improved to the point that we started to have intellectual breakthroughs that led to the modern world.
Maybe another degree or two might unleash scientific benefits that will boggle our minds.

Maybe warm = good

[redshift1]

Look at you using a Big Word in the Global Warming Debate!



As you said you are no scientist, and as such would rather subscribe to some outlier website which embraces a vast government/scientific conspiracy to perpetuate financial subsidies for scientists and alternate energy proponents.

Like an outcropping of idiocy in a vast desert of stupidity.

.

[bigmack]

Like an outcropping of idiocy in a vast desert of stupidity.

Sounds like you're getting testy with those who haven't seen definitive evidence of the degree man causes warming. NEITHER has any scientist on the planet.

Be a hero to the cult/world, show us definitive evidence. :D

[badcompany]

As you said you are no scientist, and as such would rather subscribe to some outlier website which embraces a vast government/scientific conspiracy to perpetuate financial subsidies for scientists and alternate energy proponents.

Like an outcropping of idiocy in a vast desert of stupidity.

.

No, I'd just like to see some proof other than a weak statistical argument based on post hoc reasoning.

As Tom alluded to, you can just as easily create a chart showing an increase in lifespan starting with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, but that chart wouldn't give you the same tingle in your shorts, now would it?

[Dahoss9698]

Sounds like you're getting testy

Oh wow.

[TJDave]

Oh wow.

Just consider it as a compliment. ;)

[boxcar]

As you said you are no scientist, and as such would rather subscribe to some outlier website which embraces a vast government/scientific conspiracy to perpetuate financial subsidies for scientists and alternate energy proponents.

Like an outcropping of idiocy in a vast desert of stupidity.

.

Only the ultra naive would believe that no one was ever tempted to engage in dishonorable behavior for financial gain. Scientists are particularly susceptible because their incomes, for the most part, are derived from those subsidies. Not too many people are willing to bite the hand that feeds them.

Boxcar

[Steve R]

You have to keep up, Steve. That data is FLAWED.

In fact, they had to come out a few years ago and publicly admit their temps are bogus.

Try again. Bring a credible link and choose from any 'prize' in the top two rows.

You like monkeys or frogs?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/TheFTWUltimatePHPAppThrowdownGlobalNerdy.png
A few years ago? The citation for the data presented is from 2012. No one ever admitted the temperature measurements were "bogus". Actually, in 2010 the NCDC found no evidence that the temperature trend was inflated. Then, of course, there is the Koch-brothers-funded Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (http://berkeleyearth.org/images/decadal-land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg) released in 2012 which concludes in part:

"Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."

What a disappointment that must have been for Dave and Chuck.

BTW, can you provide me with your scientific credentials that qualify you to evaluate this data objectively, or is your position based on what you've been told by "scientists" like Rush Limbaugh and Paul Ryan?

[hcap]

Only the ultra naive would believe that no one was ever tempted to engage in dishonorable behavior for financial gain. Scientists are particularly susceptible because their incomes, for the most part, are derived from those subsidies. Not too many people are willing to bite the hand that feeds them.

So 97% of Climatologists, all relevant governmental agencies of all countries, all universities, and all accredited scientific agencies are on the take? Only knee jerk anti-science republicans and therefore most of PA off topic, are true blue and apple pie ?

[Steve R]

Hmm...Global surface temps in 2011 were the ninth warmest? That's kinda down a wee bit from the warmest, wouldn't you say? You gotta find some data that says the planet is warmer than it was in 1880. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
No, you have to consider the long term trends. Individual years can be affected by particular events such as the cooling observed in 1992 and 1993 following the huge eruption of Mt. Pintalbo in the Philippines in 1991. There was only minor variation between 1880 and 1920 (when there were only 7.5 million cars and trucks in the U.S. compared to more than 250 million today) with annual global temperatures generally running between 0.2 and 0.3 deg C below the 1951-1980 base period mean. Since the mid-1980s the annual global temperatures have run between about 0.2 and 0.6 deg C above the same base. Since the 1880 data and the most recent data are relative to the same 1951-1980 base period, clearly the planet is warmer now than it was 130 years ago. Now you can disagree with how the data was collected over all those years, but your contention is that you have to "find some data that says the planet is warmer than it was in 1880". That's exactly what the NASA data does as does the 2012 temperature study funded by the Koch brothers.

[bigmack]

Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."
It comes as no great surprise you buy this scam. Did it ever occur to you that scientists don't normally run around using words as "likely."

Do me a favor. Search EVERY link you can about global warming and find ONE that definitely puts a percentage to what effect man has on global temps.

Anything over .000000000000000000001 and you'll be on the front page of every paper in the woild.

gl...

[TJDave]

So 97% of Climatologists, all relevant governmental agencies of all countries, all universities, and all accredited scientific agencies are on the take? Only knee jerk anti-science republicans and therefore most of PA off topic, are true blue and apple pie ?

Boxcars believes natural selection to be a hoax. Boxcars disrespects science. Would it then come as any great surprise that he disrespects scientists?

The surprise is in that you would argue the point. ;)

[boxcar]

So 97% of Climatologists, all relevant governmental agencies of all countries, all universities, and all accredited scientific agencies are on the take? Only knee jerk anti-science republicans and therefore most of PA off topic, are true blue and apple pie ?

Well, how else do most scientists get paid? Selling lemonade at their lemonade stands? :rolleyes:

Most scientists are not very far removed from how government is funded -- i.e. by others. The only diff between the two is that scientists don't actually get to directly collect the taxes on which their livelihood depends. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Boxcars believes natural selection to be a hoax. Boxcars disrespects science. Would it then come as any great surprise that he disrespects scientists?

The surprise is in that you would argue the point. ;)He also claims that we live in a young universe measured in thousands of years, but God makes it appear to scientists and rational men that it is old, measured in billions of years. I thought box would apply this line of thought as well to Global warming. Would be so neat and tidy.

Box, how about it?

[Steve R]

So 97% of Climatologists, all relevant governmental agencies of all countries, all universities, and all accredited scientific agencies are on the take? Only knee jerk anti-science republicans and therefore most of PA off topic, are true blue and apple pie ?
It's interesting how people pick and choose conspiracies based mainly on their politics. Which ones are real and which ones are nonsense? JFK, Iran/Contra, Watergate, 9/11, climate change, Roswell, Princess Diana, the moon landing, Pearl Harbor and/or the Gulf of Tonkin, The Protocols, etc, etc.

[bigmack]

It's interesting how people pick and choose conspiracies based mainly on their politics....
I'll give you a pass, as I assume you're as misinformed as the general public.

hcap, however, has been schooled on all this, multiple times.

When he talks of a scientific consensus and redshift talks about "global temperatures are rising and they graph nicely with the onset of the industrial revolution" their ENTIRE premise is thrown out the window with articles like this from 1975.

I don't know how old you are, but I remember reading this. A scientific consensus of a COOLING world.

See, the game is, find a trend and pin the blame on dirty old MAN.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/33-2.png
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/34.png

[boxcar]

Yeah, "stockpiling food" would get us through the "climate crisis It worked for the ancient Egyptians when that part of the world had a big drought. Problem solved.

Boxcar

[Steve R]

It comes as no great surprise you buy this scam. Did it ever occur to you that scientists don't normally run around using words as "likely."

Do me a favor. Search EVERY link you can about global warming and find ONE that definitely puts a percentage to what effect man has on global temps.

Anything over .000000000000000000001 and you'll be on the front page of every paper in the woild.

gl...
Bullshit! Any scientist who performs statistical data analysis is attempting to determine how "likely" it is that an observation is not the result of random events. That's why those analyzing statistical data deal in probabilities.

Do your homework.

2001: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - >66% probability that humans are primarily responsible for global warming

2007: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - >90%

2011: Huber and Knutti in Nature Geoscience - >95%

2012: Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (funded by the Koch brothers) - 95%

[Steve R]

I'll give you a pass, as I assume you're as misinformed as the general public.

hcap, however, has been schooled on all this, multiple times.

When he talks of a scientific consensus and redshift talks about "global temperatures are rising and they graph nicely with the onset of the industrial revolution" their ENTIRE premise is thrown out the window with articles like this from 1975.

I don't know how old you are, but I remember reading this. A scientific consensus of a COOLING world.

See, the game is, find a trend and pin the blame on dirty old MAN.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/33-2.png
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/34.png
The 1975 article (which is not a scientific publication) focuses on the years 1945 to 1968. Check out the Koch brothers-funded study (http://berkeleyearth.org/images/decadal-land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg) and you will see a slight drop in global temperatures over that same time frame followed by a huge increase beginning after 1970. Your point is irrelevant.

How old am I? I'm 69. I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Columbia University and did two years of post-doctoral research at Harvard in the laboratory of a Nobel Prize winner. I'm an author on over 50 patents on behalf of a major international oil company and I was co-author of almost a dozen peer-reviewed chemistry journal articles prior to that. I spent my professional career analyzing experimental data and apparently my analyses were sound enough to warrant the issuance of patents and the publication of technical papers. Unlike you, I don't rely on anecdotal evidence or confuse weather with climate.

[bigmack]

Unlike you, I don't rely on anecdotal evidence or confuse weather with climate.
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy, I'M CONVINCED. We're in for some HOT temps and it's all man's fault. :lol:

What can I do with that information? Should I send money to someone or get an extra air conditioner?

[Tom]

Like an outcropping of idiocy in a vast desert of stupidity.

Here is the stupid bottom line.
There is nothing we can do to change the warming trend. Nada.
China and India will never comply with Al Gore type nonsense.
For our part, the ridiculous new light bulbs have a net negative effect on the environment - Chine spits out more pollution making them than they save, and costs us tons of jobs.

You want to do something smart about the rising seal levels?

Move inland.
Other than that, nothing is ever going to change the tend, unless it is nature.

We live here, we do not run the place.
Deal with it.

[Steve R]

Here is the stupid bottom line.
There is nothing we can do to change the warming trend. Nada.
China and India will never comply with Al Gore type nonsense.
For our part, the ridiculous new light bulbs have a net negative effect on the environment - Chine spits out more pollution making them than they save, and costs us tons of jobs.

You want to do something smart about the rising seal levels?

Move inland.
Other than that, nothing is ever going to change the tend, unless it is nature.

We live here, we do not run the place.
Deal with it.
Surprising as it may seem, I agree with you but perhaps for different reasons. The lethal combination of human stupidity, avarice, superstition and ego preempts any possible rational solution. It's what allows sociopaths like Obama and Romney to achieve power and it's what drives nations to sacrifice their young for the benefit of the oligarchs. It is what ultimately will drive humanity to its self-destruction.

[bigmack]

The lethal combination of human stupidity, avarice, superstition and ego preempts any possible rational solution. It's what allows sociopaths like Obama and Romney to achieve power and it's what drives nations to sacrifice their young for the benefit of the oligarchs. It is what ultimately will drive humanity to its self-destruction.
But other than that, how 'bout them Yankees? :D

Whoa, Steve. HEAVY.

Lighten up. It's going to be OK.

[jognlope]

Yet when I read a story of a polar bear cub drowning as it tries to follow his mother swimming through miles of water to find ice, I don't care what any scientists say.

[bigmack]

Yet when I read a story of a polar bear cub drowning as it tries to follow his mother swimming through miles of water to find ice, I don't care what any scientists say.
Darling, please.

Ice caps are at record highs and the polar bear popoolation is thriving.

Don't fall for poster advertising to form an opinion.

Please?
--

But wait, do you have ANY IDEA how much money WWF makes from this type of propaganda?

http://www.enviro-live.com/images/stories/Climate/stranded%20polar%20bear.jpg

[johnhannibalsmith]

Out of curiosity, does the phrase "binders full of women" offend you?

[bigmack]

Look at that. I go to the wwf site and what do they peddle?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/PolarBear-Species-WWF.png


What a hoot. Getting rich off imaginary stranded polar bears.

It's an industry!

(Believe me, it is. TONS of dough floating around "Green" crap.)

[PaceAdvantage]

BSHow so? Either temps have been rising steadily with the onset of the Industrial Revolution or they haven't.

It's pretty much a yes or no answer.

Yes or No?

[PaceAdvantage]

It's interesting how people pick and choose conspiracies based mainly on their politics. Which ones are real and which ones are nonsense? JFK, Iran/Contra, Watergate, 9/11, climate change, Roswell, Princess Diana, the moon landing, Pearl Harbor and/or the Gulf of Tonkin, The Protocols, etc, etc.What, no USS Liberty?

[bigmack]

How so? Either temps have been rising steadily with the onset of the Industrial Revolution or they haven't.
It's pretty much a yes or no answer.
Yes or No?
Let's see, BS, BS, what was I responding to.....

Oh yeah.

Originally Posted by redshift1
Whether you believe in anthropogenic causes or naturally occurring variances, global temperatures are rising and they graph nicely with the onset of the industrial revolution. Draw your own sampling conclusions.

There. I bolded the BS part for ya. :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

So they DON'T graph nicely with the onset of the IR? How can that not be true if it is true?

I guess this is my fault for not paying attention to all these graphs.

[newtothegame]

So they DON'T graph nicely with the onset of the IR? How can that not be true if it is true?

I guess this is my fault for not paying attention to all these graphs.
I am kind of with you on this one (I think)...so many graphs, all showing what they want you to believe yet all different.
I think someone said it best earlier....NOTHING we can do about it anyways so whats the fuss? China and Asia will NEVER adhere to global rules on environmental protections. So we can just tax our own companies right into their laps if we wish........

[johnhannibalsmith]

...NOTHING we can do about it anyways so whats the fuss? China and Asia will NEVER adhere to global rules on environmental protections. So we can just tax our own companies right into their laps if we wish........


You don't get it. It isn't about "saving" the planet, it's about making sure that other people know that you're about saving the planet and feeling really swell about yourself for being farther along on the "big brain" evolutionary scale compared to the dopes. It's called "Non Smoker Syndrome".

[bigmack]

One of the MANY skeptical scientists is in the UK. He's in that hour long video. (VERY informative) He charts solar activity.

He knows what type of weather large swaths of areas can expect MONTHS in advance. He's won a bunch of dough from people doubting he could predict that far out.

Solar activity EXACTLY coincides with our weather patterns & climate. They could bring charts til they're blue in the face and it will never come close to the exact match of solar activity.

Think of solar activity being an elephant and man's CO2 emissions being a grain of sand under one of the elephants feet.

Solar activity perfectly explains things like the dips during the dreaded "Industrial Revolution"

[PaceAdvantage]

I didn't realize we were still arguing cause. I thought the poster who you decried BS to was simply noting a statistical fact. Rising temperatures from the start of the IR. This is either true or not true. It's not even debatable or able to be called BS. It's an easily verifiable fact. No opinion or BS call is necessary.

It's like global warming. It's either true or it isn't. All one needs is a thermometer and a notebook to keep track.

Not arguing cause. Just verifiable statistical fact.

[TJDave]

You don't get it. It isn't about "saving" the planet, it's about making sure that other people know that you're about saving the planet and feeling really swell about yourself for being farther along on the "big brain" evolutionary scale compared to the dopes. It's called "Non Smoker Syndrome".

I'm a reformed ex-smoker of the worst kind. I tell people around me I don't like it. If that don't work I tell them if they continue I will hurt them in ways they can't even imagine.

Global warming doesn't bother me as much. If I thought I would live long enough... that water would wet my ankles, I'd care more.