Who claimed the polar ice caps disappeared in 2013? Cite.Originally Posted by Cephus
So the polar ice caps really did entirely disappear in 2013, huh?
Who claimed the polar ice caps disappeared in 2013? Cite.So the polar ice caps really did entirely disappear in 2013, huh?
Al Gore popularized it and he was entirely wrong. In fact, the same year he claimed it would all be gone, the polar ice caps hit a 35-year maximum.
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.
Blog me! YouTube me! SpkOut me!
Al Gore isn't a scientist. Therefore, any critique of global warming that centers around criticizing something he said or didn't say is irrelevant.
And the name of the thread is ?It looks more like right wingers have to be educated, since they keep arguing against terms/phrases that don't know the meaning of
" Our Climate Models were Wrong " ...
Well of-course they were wrong. They weren't based on empirical evidence and objective analysis and instead were constructed using manipulated data.
Its wasn't people like me that were gullible enough to be taken in by false narratives and ridiculous predictions.
It was and continues to be people like you.
" Statistical Homogenation " is only credible as long as the people using it continue to go on unchallenged.
Its so " credible " that the NOAA was forced to change their assertions and re-instate July 1936 as the Hottest month on record.
Apparently they didn't give much credence to their own process.
You know, if they had only committed themselves to the age old Scientific process of using empirical data instead of data twisted to give them their desired conclusion they wouldn't have had to change their minds.
But then again if they relied on Empirical evidence in the first place they couldn't have hood winked people like you into believing that AGW exist.
Such is the conundrum that dishonesty creates.
Nor is he honest, or has any semblance of integrity or cares at all about the " Climate ".
Thats strange
AFrom Nature,ccuracy is the proximity of measurement results to the true value;
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment
That does not sound like a 1% accuracy to me.Stark contrast
On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.
You don't need computer models to show the correlation between increased C02 and temperature change when taking into account all the other factors that effect temperature.
If it was 80 degrees one day, 100 degrees the next and 80 you wouldn't conclude that the sun isn't warming (or cooling depending on the time of year), you'd look for other strong short term influences, perhaps it was cloudy, or there was a strong breeze off cool water....
Don't look to me to defend Germany's energy policy or try to portray a false dichotomy between green energy=bad and fossil fuels are good. Suggesting that the "free market", a ridiculous euphemism of I've ever heard it, as the market isn't "free". There are plenty of constraints with deep pocketed interests that would like to see fossil fuels as the only viable alternative and, conversely, as you are surely quick to retort, lots of people who bleed green and would like to see all fossil fuels banned tomorrow regardless of the catastrophe that would ensue. It is possible for the "free market" to retard progress for years if not decades based solely on economic interests. I'll freely admit that interests on the other side can also retard progress just as much. When deciding how to proceed with energy alternatives there are a million was to succeed and a million ways to fail. Sounds like Germany has chosen a path to green energy along a path that has failed.
The idea that there is a global conspiracy of climate scientists all fighting for a pool of liberal tree hugging dollars that runs roughshod over the hundreds if not thousands of multi-billion dollar corporations in an effort to smear them is a conspiracy only matched by the ridiculous idea that the moon landings were faked.
Last edited by csbrown28; 04-27-15 at 09:52 PM.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary (or faith) depends upon his not understanding it.”
"We don't see the world as it is, we see the world as we are".
Really? Which isotopes would those be? Since we're talking about "atoms that cannot be formed through natural phenomena" how are these radioisotopes being formed, and why is there such a high concentration given what's got to be a half life measured in seconds or a fraction thereof?
If you are citing Al Gore as a recognized climate scientist as a way to discredit real published peer reviewed work, you sadly underestimate those that disagree with you.
Al Gore, is a POLITICIAN who believes that the ends justify the means, that a lie or deception done for the right reason is ok. Hopefully there isn't anyone on this forum citing Al Gore's work as proof of anything.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary (or faith) depends upon his not understanding it.”
"We don't see the world as it is, we see the world as we are".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote