Socrtease
Verified User
This site http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/global_warming_update4.html is a good site for an overview from NASA on global warming. In the information presented there some things of note were:
REALLY dead hurricane season, Global warming alarmist predictions WRONG yet again
- Thread starter TheDanold
- Start date
Dilloduck
Indifferent
It MAY reduce the severity and length ? Now thats some pretty good motivation to turn our arable land into fuel.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The mainstream of America, I mean those who believe in the truth that is global warming, never stated that every year has to bring a new 200 MPH typhoon to the coast. But they will become more common over the years. And this isn't exactly boom time for the hurrican season, either. But just because superstorms are more likely doesn't mean they have to happen every year - you can't just ridiculously single out one year and say that "disprove" it all.
Agnosticus_Caesar
Fuck You Too
Dano impersonation...ahem:
...Because I can regurgitate ONE thing, that I can espouse a Non Sequitur "conclusion" from, I was, therefore, right all along.
Dano spent years parroting Global Warming naysayers. In recent years, the FACTS of global warming have become SO broadly manisfest, that even a POLITICIAN was able to sway public opinion, even in the face of manifold disinformation efforts.
Dano is trying to save face.
He and his ilk are trying to fool the public with a mixture of "we never really refuted it" and "those guys are just alarmists", coupled with Straw Man arguments of "look, they said X , and it isn't ALWAYS X (even though "they" REALLY said "a trend of X over Y number of seasons", and said prediction is what is ACTUALLY observed.)
Once again, Dano tries to deceive, rather than accept reality. That is the nature of the extremist ideologue.
...Because I can regurgitate ONE thing, that I can espouse a Non Sequitur "conclusion" from, I was, therefore, right all along.
Dano spent years parroting Global Warming naysayers. In recent years, the FACTS of global warming have become SO broadly manisfest, that even a POLITICIAN was able to sway public opinion, even in the face of manifold disinformation efforts.
Dano is trying to save face.
He and his ilk are trying to fool the public with a mixture of "we never really refuted it" and "those guys are just alarmists", coupled with Straw Man arguments of "look, they said X , and it isn't ALWAYS X (even though "they" REALLY said "a trend of X over Y number of seasons", and said prediction is what is ACTUALLY observed.)
Once again, Dano tries to deceive, rather than accept reality. That is the nature of the extremist ideologue.
uscitizen
Villified User
whatsa difference? Arable land has turned into arid land this year pretty much anyway in my area.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
I do accept reality, from my extensive reading I see a trend of more certainty in the earth warming and more uncertainty of the cause, especially after reading the effects of cosmic rays, solar radiance and wind shear. My opinion has done nothing but shift with the latest science and has the least to do with ideology of anyone I know and that is the bald truth.
You mentioned ideology, but here is a Socialist who was one of the ORGINAL warners on human global warming and is now a sceptic
"Dr. Allègre has recanted his views on anthropogenic global warming "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century", as written 20 years ago in "Clés pour la géologie".
From Canadian National Post: "His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l'Express, the French weekly periodic. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown", he states as matter of fact. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allegre
You position yourself as a man of science and reason, YET you do not wish to debate the actual science and just rest on the ol' comfort of believing it to be so broadly believed that it is effectively taboo to debate it.
The idea here is to create the impression of "vigorous debate" by focusing on the occasional anomoly, until such a point as it is too late for any action to stave off the most dire consequences.
To that, I would say "mission accomplished." I honestly don't think there is anything we can do at this point to make a dramatic enough change to make a difference.
My only consolation is that idiots like Dano & Coulter & the rest are going to have to live with the same consequences as myself & the rest...
To that, I would say "mission accomplished." I honestly don't think there is anything we can do at this point to make a dramatic enough change to make a difference.
My only consolation is that idiots like Dano & Coulter & the rest are going to have to live with the same consequences as myself & the rest...
Dilloduck
Indifferent
The difference is in the price we are now paying for food.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I love it when right-wing people try to think. It proves they often lack the mechanism to engage in actually thinking .. like a brain.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of scientific indicators that global warming is real .. but toss the lobotomized right-wing a bone they can chew themselves blind with and they'll consider that "thinking."
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of scientific indicators that global warming is real .. but toss the lobotomized right-wing a bone they can chew themselves blind with and they'll consider that "thinking."
TheDanold
Unimatrix
I love how leftist dumbasses ALWAYS avoid debating any actual science, they just keep pointing to the prevailing majority opinion of the day and let others thoughts be theirs.
And if you actually read anything, I NEVER denied in this thread that global warming is not real, like the Socialist Professor/Politician Claude Allegre, I debated that humans were the cause of it.
I think if I ever needed any proof that Liberals not only don't bother debating, but don't bother even LOOKING at an argument, this thread is a golden example.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
What dishonesty, I mentioned Claude Allegre, a professor, a Socialist policitician and one of the ORIGINAL proponents of human caused global warming and like the little bitch coward you are, you ignore that the man exists or debating his views and just go off on some iconoclast like Coulter.
Pathetic.
The left's whole argument in debating any sceptic in global warming has never been anything more than how to discredit, fake incredulity and pose exasperation in any they deal with.
"What dishonesty"
It's amazing you can say that without irony.
You HAVE to know that all you do on this issue is cherrypick the occasional needle in the haystack that you're able to scrounge.
Either that, or you have no self-awareness, which might be something you need to worry about.
It's amazing you can say that without irony.
You HAVE to know that all you do on this issue is cherrypick the occasional needle in the haystack that you're able to scrounge.
Either that, or you have no self-awareness, which might be something you need to worry about.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Good job on responding to the first 2 words, very courageous of you, now try the rest. You can do it!
LOL, you know you don't look at any points within an argument, you just scan through for the easiest part to pick out and then ride that for all it's worth.
Strawman motherfucker.
What's the point? I've done this 1,000 times with you. And that's even MORE irony - saying that "I pick the easiest part." I've picked EVERY part with you; you have said that to me when I talk about the TITLE OF YOUR THREADS! It's just an easy out for you, when you know what I'm saying is true.
And you do, or you really are stupid. Just admit it for once. Don't you think if you're ideology was the opposite, it would be easy for you to start 20x the threads that you currently do, because the information & weight of evidence out there is so overwhelming when compared to the scraps that you dig up to support your current ideology?
That's why my 1st response on the thread had to do w/ your emphasis on this one rare anomoly, as opposed to the weekly reports that we see of predictions that HAVE come true, on everything from coral reef disappearance to ice sheets to temperature shifts to habitat loss.
You're a joke, and you're on the wrong side of history by about 10,000 miles. Lucky for you, you're going to get to see HOW wrong you are in the course of your lifetime. Try to pay attention.
And you do, or you really are stupid. Just admit it for once. Don't you think if you're ideology was the opposite, it would be easy for you to start 20x the threads that you currently do, because the information & weight of evidence out there is so overwhelming when compared to the scraps that you dig up to support your current ideology?
That's why my 1st response on the thread had to do w/ your emphasis on this one rare anomoly, as opposed to the weekly reports that we see of predictions that HAVE come true, on everything from coral reef disappearance to ice sheets to temperature shifts to habitat loss.
You're a joke, and you're on the wrong side of history by about 10,000 miles. Lucky for you, you're going to get to see HOW wrong you are in the course of your lifetime. Try to pay attention.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
This thread is a golden example of just what I said .. your inability to think.
You've picked one scientist, whom I've never heard of, and one psuedo-indicator and you "think" you have an argument.
That "prevailing majority opinion" you speak of is the prevailing opinion of SCIENTISTS and RESEARCHERS .. yet you are foolish enough to talk about debating science.
You're not talking about science, you're talking about ideology, which is why you've pointed out several times that Allegre is a socialist.
Then, ignorantly, you cherry-picked one hurricane season after years of heightened hurricane activity and somehow "thought" this was an indicator that global warming is not caused by humans and declared ALL the mountains of SCIENCE that says humans have affected global warming, "WRONG."
Damn dude, you mean you actually need others to hold your hand and walk you though how dumb your argument is?
TheDanold
Unimatrix
You are wrong, the latest research shows a majority moving away from adhering to believing humans are the cause.
"A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery."
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml
Note these are peer-reviewed pieces of literature.
The sun's irradiance is shaping up to be the major factor in Earth's temperatures and their have been more than a dozen previous global warmings.
Wow, you are slow. I AM using a Socialist to show that scepticism of manmade global warming TRANSCENDS ideology and is not just some right-wing opinion.
Actually this is the SECOND season that was dead after dire predictions of it being bad. It's called a trend, not an anomaly.
Fucking scary isn't it? Imagine actually having to debate the science!
It must suck having to bother writing such a long-winded rant and still not be able to actually make a point.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
NO, I use to question the likelihood of it being real, since then as I've said multiple times, the evidence is showing more that we are certain we are warming but LESS certain as to the cause.
It's not like one leads to the other.
I believe the paper you’re referring, that alleges to challenge the scientific consensus, has been rejected for publication in a technical journal, indicating that its methodology and accuracy are flawed.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Um maybe, it could have just as easily been rejected because the editor did not like it, did not think it newsworthy or did not like the author.
And anyway, had you bothered to read what I wrote, you will see I was referring to more than 300 PAPERS - which probably means you did not read what I wrote and have no idea which ONE single paper you and your blog link are pretending to get people to believe was rejected anyway.
The patheticness just keeps piling up...