- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I agree! Good point!
Thats their lie it has made them unbelievable and not credible.
I agree! Good point!
You mean do I have more faith in the National Academy of Sciences and all the world's major science academies than I do an internet blog? Yes I do.
Thats their lie it has made them unbelievable and not credible.
It was from your source! :rofl
Only because the former says tells you want to hear and the latter does not. Reverse the situation, and you will reverse your preference.
What you refuse to accept is that the science that supports AGW is tainted and thus, to anyone with any degree of intellectual integrity, circumspect. You refuse to question the science because it reports what you want to hear, and nothing else.
Your faith, thus described.
The Earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for Millions of years.
Wacko enviromental people fail to mention that..:2wave:
The science behind anthropogenic climate change is completely sound.
Do you really think all these scientists, the ones who discovered the cycle in the first place, just totally forgot to take that into account?
But who can deny that the weather patterns are all topsy turvy these days?
Welcome to chaos theory.
It's not like DC and Texas and Florida haven't seen snow before.
the Chicken Littles seize on every little warm spell as evidence of "global warming ...oops...CLIMATE CHANGE", and then tell people pointing to cold weather that isolated instances of snow don't mean anything, then they say that the snow is evidence of CLIMATE CHANGE, as if they didn't just contradict themselves.
What you people need to do is buy hard hats, then you'll stop worrying about that sky falling issue you have.
Record breaking snow not just a small amount.
Well, yes it is.
You just have to understand what "record breaking" means.
It doesn't mean it's never snowed that much there before.
It means nobody was keeping records when it had.
The depth of the Little Ice Age was ca. 1650. Ya think the natives of Texas were keeping records back then?
Do you realize that in the second year weather records were kept on an organized basis that there was a 50% chance of record breaking high temperatures EVERY SINGLE DAY?
Can't believe this thread is still going on.
And I'm amazed that people who laugh at 9/11 conspiracy theorists see no irony in their belief that the vast majority of scientists from every country and political view have conspired to make up Climate Change theory, without any apparent gain to them and at a tremendous risk to their jobs and reputation.
It boggles the mind.
They never challenge other scientific theories. No one is arguing against the theory of gravity or plate tectonics. No, the only time science is so challenged is for reasons political (climate change) or religious (evolution).
Hello?
"Vast majority"?
Got any evidence that George Bush led a team of CIA operatives on a midnight mission to mine the World Trade Center?
I've got evidence the leading authorities on global warming cooked their books and tried to manipulate the reviewing process.
Oh, btw, AGW theory IS a religion to people who refuse to heed the science that refutes it.
Here you go scientist trying to figure out the cooling taking place.
Reuters AlertNet - ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming
Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.
At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.
Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.
Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere.
"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one U.S. analysis. For a table of world temperatures: [ID:nLDE6050Y5]
Part of the explanation could be a failure to account for rapid warming in parts of the Arctic, where sea ice had melted, and where there were fewer monitoring stations, he said.
"I think we need better analysis of what's going on on a routine basis so that everyone, politicians and the general public, are informed about our current understanding of what is happening, more statements in a much quicker fashion instead of waiting for another six years for the next IPCC report."
Except for the parts where fraud was used.:roll:
Explain how the science behind the greenhouse effect isn't sound. More specifically, explain how the logic train behind climate change is illogical.
Miskolczi's key error in the "Virial Theorem" portion of his argument is definitely that he forgot to include a "hard core" potential to represent the surface of the Earth. His error means that Miskolczi's assumption that 2<K> = -<V> is false.
He also makes errors in his application of "Kirchoff's Law of Radiation" --- but the errors in the "Virial Theorem" portion of his argument are already sufficient to invalidate his paper.
Looking beyond the "examiners" stringent review process we also have a glimpse of the peer review process in action among other critiques of his paper we find this:
The greenhouse of Miskolczi - Page 2
apparently this question needs to be re-asked:
Examiner.com: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?