if the shoe dont fit, by all means dont wear it. I may have gotten the wrong impression. Humans are fallible after all. even those with "skins."
Who ever argued that one needs 100% certainty in order to take a rational course of action?
Opposition is acceptable; stupid opposition making dumb arguments, not so much. (Not saying all opposition in this thread is like that, not saying all opposition in this thread isn't)
None of use outright deny that CO2 causes warming. We only deny that it causes as much as you fear-mongers claim, and that it's not enough to be concerned about.
If you can't get the argument right, please stop typing your propaganda.
They've had to gerrymander (at least a similar s game) the temperature stations to continue to claim global warming. I see temperatures returning to the late 70's/early 80's in my region.I wonder when global temperature will get back to 1998 levels?
Not 1999-2009.
And it's not looking good for 2010.
How many of you people are old enough to see these approximate 30 year cycles?
global warming as a political agenda of the left is a power grab on par with the right's war on terror.
Agreed to the first part, not the second.
Tell me now... Why is the left still using the terror theme, and stepping up airport harassment rather than removing it? Explain that in the right thread please.
I didnt say they were exclusive to those respective sides
seems that whatever gets us running into the arms of big brother works just fine for the left or the right
Does it bother Manny that there are many prominent people in HIS field of study that aren't AGW catastrophists?
I agree there are republicans who want to increase the bureaucracy. I however do not call them the right, or conservative. I call them RINOs.
You might want to better clarify that statement... "many" is a wishy-washy word. How many is "many"?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...march_2010.pdf
Excerpt:
Weathercasters hold a wide range of beliefs about global warming. Survey participants responded to a variety of questions assessing their beliefs in and at udes about “global warming,” questions that have been used previously in our public opinion research.2 More than half of our respondent (54%) indicated that global warming is happening, 25% indicated it isn’t, and 21% say they don’t know yet. About one-third (31%) reported that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, while almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment.
Interesting survey.
These are the people who see day to day weather across the world. They haven't (as a whole) been indoctrinated by the climatologist classes, which I see clearly teaching false science. Now before anyone argues that since i see it that way and ask why more aren't to my view, just remember what the majority of talk is about.
TV meteorologists
The only thing that offends me about that survey is Darrin saying broadcast "meteorologists" are 1)prominent and 2) have a field of study.
Why do you find a survey of scientists actually involved in research and expert study as opposed to those who are the generally given their jobs based upon charm, looks, and other superficial bull and not upon actual credentials.
The qualifications for getting a seal of approval from the AMS is are fairly laughable.
Don't take my word for it though. Read up on the two groups for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ogical_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...er_Association
So Darrin is willing to extend credibility to those who agree with him regardless of experience or expertise? Shocking!
On the other hand.....
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/w...ty?_s=PM:WORLD
Oh here - have a list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...neider.2C_2010
Darrin says consensus is not the way of scientific advancement....except when he's trying to spin the argument in his favor.
From the wikipedia AMS link
As a means of promoting "the development and dissemination of information and education on the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences and the advancement of their professional applications",[6] the AMS periodically publishes policy statements on issues related to its competence[7] on subjects such as drought,[8] ozone[9] and acid deposition.[10]
In 2003, the AMS issued the position statement Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences:
Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[11]
Damn, Manny's pissed.
Not really pissed but I have a lot of disdain for the AMS, their stupid ass seal of approval, and most TV "meteorologists".
You don't respect the work of this nation's Albert Flores'?
He's definitely no Steve Browne.
According to Manny, you can do a ed up principal component analysis, create ty computer models, and skirt freedom of information laws, as long as you have good credentials
, evidently, you can have ZERO credentials and win a Nobel Prize based on scenarios that are orders of magnitude greater than IPCC's worst case scenario.
Why are you laughing? These guys have the same college credentials of climatologists, minus one course.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
