F
fnr
Guest
Interactive web site: bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
- Status
G
GLam8833
Guest
I don’t need scientists to tell me something is
or is not wrong about global warming, the
radical changes in the temperatures in the past
few years where I live tells me SOMETHING is
happening to our world and it is throwing the
seasons out of wack!!
or is not wrong about global warming, the
radical changes in the temperatures in the past
few years where I live tells me SOMETHING is
happening to our world and it is throwing the
seasons out of wack!!
H
Hans_W
Guest
There are plenty of places on this planet where you won’t have felt any changes.
Science can tell you what this “something” is.
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
Bloomberg is an ideological leftist extremist.
Here are some facts:
The mid-west USA has had the coolest summer that anybody remembers.
It snowed last week in Calgary. In AUGUST it snowed in Calgary.
Global warming is a fraud. The globe has been cooling for about 20 years.
Climate change is constant, look at how often humans have moved because of weather changes (Vikings left Greenland when it got too cold, Pueblo Indians left the desert southwest because it got to hot, etc).
Our climate is mostly solar driven…until a major volcano (like Krakatoa) pops off and puts us in a global winter for a few years.
CO2 is atmospheric plant food. Yes, that’s right…plants LIKE atmospheric CO2 because they use the carbon in it to grow.
Leftists will use any reason they can find to take money from you (carbon credits) and give it to their friends (Al Gore, et al), because they feel they can spend your money better than you can.
Here are some facts:
The mid-west USA has had the coolest summer that anybody remembers.
It snowed last week in Calgary. In AUGUST it snowed in Calgary.
Global warming is a fraud. The globe has been cooling for about 20 years.
Climate change is constant, look at how often humans have moved because of weather changes (Vikings left Greenland when it got too cold, Pueblo Indians left the desert southwest because it got to hot, etc).
Our climate is mostly solar driven…until a major volcano (like Krakatoa) pops off and puts us in a global winter for a few years.
CO2 is atmospheric plant food. Yes, that’s right…plants LIKE atmospheric CO2 because they use the carbon in it to grow.
Leftists will use any reason they can find to take money from you (carbon credits) and give it to their friends (Al Gore, et al), because they feel they can spend your money better than you can.
S
sps49
Guest
The Bloomberg widget is amusing in that it omits much of the reference material used to create it, making it a kind of forced-perspective and distorted CliffsNotes. For people not inclined to fact check through sources containing original research, it tells them what they want to hear. As usual, the truth is to be found outside of these echo-chamber toys.
T
Theo520
Guest
And it’s completely bogus, based on bad models. If you examine their land use model, it is about reflectivity not land use. That’s why they claim reforestation is increasing global warming.
Net the models do a very bad job at explaining the warming over the past century.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This argument is also known as “shoot the messenger”.
Are you taking the mid-west USA as a proxy for the whole world?
Now you’re taking one day is Calgary as a proxy for a climate trend? Very scientific!
According what thermometer?
Well, solar and volcano effects were both graphed in the OP article, and their contribution appeared to be nil.
This proves nothing about global warming.
This does not explain how that supposed inclination of leftists has managed to gain control of and subvert the scientific establishment, as if that were an easy thing to do. If it is so easy, why don’t those on the opposite side of the issue simply do the same thing and subvert the scientific establishment to their cause? They certainly have more resources at their disposal to do that.
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
No, it’s called identifying the messenger, and their extreme bias.
No. But a few years ago Al Gore said the mid-west USA “Breadbasket of the world” was going to be a dry lifeless desert. Oh, and by 2015 New York was going to be underwater.Are you taking the mid-west USA as a proxy for the whole world?
No, it is a point in time. However I believe this is a HISTORIC snowstorm that has not occurred in written history. Now, if you take a historically cool summer, and a historic snowstorm in August, and then you try to say that the entire planet “has a FEVER!!!” then reasonable people won’t believe you.
Fortunately, this is beginning to happen…reasonable people are looking at what the alarmists have been screaming and dismissing them.
Lots.
I didn’t read the OP article. It’s not worth my time reading something about global warming from Bloomberg. I already know what it will say, and I know the “data” used will be extremely biased at best, and downright fraudulent at worst.
Yes, yes it does. Find a high school biology book and look up the term “Carbon Cycle”.
Leftists control much of what occurs in science because they control virtually ALL of academia where most government funded “research” is completed. It’s called publication bias and carries through with funding bias. The only thing someone can get published (in academic journals) are things that push the leftist agenda, and the only thing that will get funded are things that push the leftist agenda.
E
Erich
Guest
Seriously?
The earth was warmer 5,000 years ago than it is today.-- and mankind was no more responsible for the warmer temperatures then than now. There is even evidence that Antarctica used to be at least semitropical if not tropical.
And does anyone seriously think the earth was cooler and there was less CO2 in the atmosphere billions of years ago (when the earth’s surface was mainly molten lava, and volcanoes were busy spewing CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere)?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have no pretense at being a meteorologist, but it is my understanding that the western Atlantic is in a periodic warming phase that comes and goes in a cyclical pattern. I can’t recall how long the cycle is.
Where I live (Southwest Missouri) this summer has been unusually cool and wet. But there is also a strong El Nino which happens now and then and always results in cool, wet summers.
Next year could be dry and hot here, and certainly will be if La Nina conditions prevail off the northwest coast of South America. Always has, always will.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Here we go again :banghead:
T
Theo520
Guest
The supporting model feedbacks are a joke, that were curve fit to match actual temperatures.
The most obvious example is the ‘land use model’ which considers reforestation as as positive forcing, the darker green (carbon sucking) trees absorb more sun than a bare field or desert, that is more reflective.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
:banghead:
I have maintain that man is not responsible for global warming.
Global warming may or may not occur, but man can have no effect on it.
I maintain that this whole subject is less about “science” and mythical environmental control than it is about politics. Those who promote this hoax are only interested in passing laws like “Cap and Trade”- - the bartering of “carbon credits”, and the redistribution of wealth from industrial nations to third world countries.
I have stated that there is no evidence proving that man is capable of causing climate change.
FROM NOW ON,
ZOLTAN PROCLAIMS
There is no such thing as “global warming.”
From now on, the politically correct term shall be Natural Temperature Variation. (NTV)
There is also no such thing as “Climate Change”
From now on it will be known as “Natural Atmospheric Variation” (NAV)
“AGW” or Anthropogenic Global Warming (man-made global warming) remains a THEORY Until it is proven, it shall be referred to as: “The Unlikely-to-Be-Proven THEORY of AGW”
Since “consensus” is the business of politics and has no bearing on real science…the term has no scientific value and will be used only in a political context.
I will be watching this thread…ready to pounce
npatrol:
I have maintain that man is not responsible for global warming.
Global warming may or may not occur, but man can have no effect on it.
I maintain that this whole subject is less about “science” and mythical environmental control than it is about politics. Those who promote this hoax are only interested in passing laws like “Cap and Trade”- - the bartering of “carbon credits”, and the redistribution of wealth from industrial nations to third world countries.
I have stated that there is no evidence proving that man is capable of causing climate change.
FROM NOW ON,
ZOLTAN PROCLAIMS
There is no such thing as “global warming.”
From now on, the politically correct term shall be Natural Temperature Variation. (NTV)
There is also no such thing as “Climate Change”
From now on it will be known as “Natural Atmospheric Variation” (NAV)
“AGW” or Anthropogenic Global Warming (man-made global warming) remains a THEORY Until it is proven, it shall be referred to as: “The Unlikely-to-Be-Proven THEORY of AGW”
Since “consensus” is the business of politics and has no bearing on real science…the term has no scientific value and will be used only in a political context.
I will be watching this thread…ready to pounce
npatrol:
H
Hans_W
Guest
Yep, it’s not going to disappear anytime soon - even if 2015 is going to surpass 2014 as the hottest year.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Unfortunately, much of this is based on hysteria, not science.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That might be a valid argument if the messenger was asking you to take their word as an authority. But that is not the case. The claims made by the OP are independently verifiable. Therefore the supposed bias of the messenger is no argument against the message. It is a common logical fallacy, more formally called "ad hominem". In the case of the OP article, the authority is not Bloomberg, but NASA Goddard Institute. But I guess they are all leftists too.
Another logical fallacy - the strawman argument. You take the most outrageous claim by a non-scientist (Gore), and you attack that, because apparently you cannot attack the more reasonable claims of global warming made by actual scientists.
Right. And global warming does not claim a thing about a moment in time. It is claim about a trend, which can be true even if there are some points in time where an individual observation seems to be contrary to that trend. Let me put it this way: If I were to argue in support of global warming based on an historically hot day in Miami, would you think that was a very good argument? Of course not. So don’t try to use the same flawed reasoning when arguing against global warming.
So you say. Am I supposed to take your word for it when the evidence is against what you claim? I don’t think saying “lots” is a sufficient answer to a challenge of your claim that the globe has been cooling for 20 years.
Of course not. Why should you read the article before saying everything that’s wrong with it?
I know quite well what the Carbon Cycle is. It says what you said about plants using CO2. But it does not say anything at all about global warming.
Conspiracy theory, eh? As I said in my posting, and which you totally ignored, if lefts have such a strangle hold on academia, how do you suppose they managed to pull that off? Perhaps it is because academia already agreed with much of what the leftists were saying without any outside coercion. Or maybe it is because only leftists go to college and enter academia? I’m really at a loss to see how this difficult control was first acquired.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
While it is true that more extreme climate changes have occurred in the past, that does not constitute an argument against the theory that the changes we have seen since 1880 have been due to man.
Yes, but at the time, due to continental drift, Antarctica was located nearer to the equator than to the pole. There is no way you are going to get palm trees to grow where the sun does not shine at all for 6 months of the year.
Irrelevant and unnecessary claim. Hence this is a strawman argument.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If it is politicized, that politicization is due at least as much to the activity of the skeptics as it is to the proponents of AGW theory.
Stating it and supporting that statement with facts are two different things.
The term “consensus” is much broader than politics or science. It applies any time a group of people substantially agree about anything.
As for consensus having no bearing on real science, that is true when applied to the strict method of scientific investigation. But are you doing real science? Yourself? Personally? Or are you trying to determine what is true based on what various other people say? If you are weighing the opinion of various experts, then recognizing a consensus gives you the best chance of getting it right. A lot better than flipping a coin, or going with your own personally non-scientific pre-conceptions. Not even real scientists should do that. If they do, they are not acting like scientists.
- Status