Global warming is just the latest "Boogie man" the government is using to control and tax the people.
Years ago it was the cold war, then it was pollution, now it's climate change. In 20 years it will be alien invaders. "If we don't do something to protect the earth RIGHT NOW it will be too late...
I don't know the specific "three graphs" you are referring to, but by all means post them and we can discuss whether they provide evidence for an alternative view.
Any search will bring them up. You cannot produce numbers that support global warming within the last 16 years. "Climate change" is a demonstrable fact but the two terms are not interchangeable. Climate change will continue with or without human involvement.
Science is understood to be empirlcal. The statement 2 + 2 = 4 does not require consensus. E = MC² was not proven by "scientists agree". 'Consensus' is a political term. You claimed your view to be "rock solid". Produce the numbers. The only acceptable proof is a 'numerical' correlation.
Any search will bring them up. You cannot produce numbers that support global warming within the last 16 years. "Climate change" is a demonstrable fact but the two terms are not interchangeable. Climate change will continue with or without human involvement.
Science is understood to be empirlcal. The statement 2 + 2 = 4 does not require consensus. E = MC² was not proven by "scientists agree". 'Consensus' is a political term. You claimed your view to be "rock solid". Produce the numbers. The only acceptable proof is a 'numerical' correlation.
How odd. You must be using a different search engine than I am, because I can find plenty of empirical evidence that supports recent global warming (or climate change if you prefer).
Just for a start, try this. Feel free to post any contrary evidence you find.
Global warming is just the latest "Boogie man" the government is using to control and tax the people.
Years ago it was the cold war, then it was pollution, now it's climate change. In 20 years it will be alien invaders. "If we don't do something to protect the earth RIGHT NOW it will be too late...
Bean
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!
I don't mean to resurrect this thread if there is no further interest, but I just found again the NASA video that originally made me realize just how evident global warming really is, once you start looking at the empirical data:
I urge anyone who still has doubts to play this video:
The Heartland Institute is one of my favorite sites. Funded by (amongst others) Philip Morris and Exxon Mobil, it represents the very same people who tried to convince us that smoking wasn't dangerous, now trying to convince us the same about global warming. At least they're not silly enough to deny it is happening any more (as they tried to do in their early publications). When the science became irrefutable, they instead started claiming that it will be good thing:
“the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.”
And Popular Technology.net! Not totally loopy, despite being mostly famous for their one-man war on Wikipedia. But they do love to reference the many papers of Dr Sherwood B Idso, and other scientists funded by Exxon Mobil and other fossil-fuel companies. But here also, the site is full of articles that often no longer try to debunk global warming - instead, increasingly they want to tell us how beneficial it is going to be for us. I could quote many of the papers referenced on this site, but here is just one (by Dr Sherwood B Idso, no less!):
it is further concluded that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 may actually be beneficial to our future well-being.
Is anyone else beginning to sense a fossil-fueled theme here?
Exactly. I'm paranoid and I know they are out to get me.
Even the paranoid have real enemies............. (Richard M. Nixon)
++++++++++++++++
The problems of global warming have come about just because we have listed to professional experts and waited for a concensus. Professional Experts get paid to arrive at an opinion, so as long as the money flows.. nobody agrees. I am not even sure what a 'real expert' is these days.
All I know is I get 'good expert assistance' in the Parallax Forums, but this is a bit outside the forum's scope.
RossH, the first place I would have checked for global warming data is the NOAA. I've lost quite a bit of faith in the reliability of NASA which was created to get us into space. Currently, Russia is the only way to get to the ISS. China has a robot on the moon. We have assurances that by 2025 we will land a man on an asteroid. Director Bolden said he was given three directives, one of which was primary. Listen here
I've also read that our gps satellites will not be replaced.
I checked the NOAA website which listed global entities such as the U.N. IMO it is possible that one of those international agencies could be authorized to levy taxes.
I experimented with HHO today.I think it's a far better use of my time than studying what NASA has to say.
RossH, the first place I would have checked for global warming data is the NOAA. I've lost quite a bit of faith in the reliability of NASA which was created to get us into space. Currently, Russia is the only way to get to the ISS. China has a robot on the moon. We have assurances that by 2025 we will land a man on an asteroid. Director Bolden said he was given three directives, one of which was primary. Listen here
I've also read that our gps satellites will not be replaced.
I checked the NOAA website which listed global entities such as the U.N. IMO it is possible that one of those international agencies could be authorized to levy taxes.
I experimented with HHO today.I think it's a far better use of my time than studying what NASA has to say.
But at least NASA still knows how to do really cool animation. The NOAA site is a bit dry.
EDIT: Actually, I take back the bit about the NOAA being a bit dry - I think the Global Climate Dashboard on the NOAA site is pretty good!
Comments
Years ago it was the cold war, then it was pollution, now it's climate change. In 20 years it will be alien invaders. "If we don't do something to protect the earth RIGHT NOW it will be too late...
Bean
Would that be the same 'science' that said we were headed into an ice age when I was in elementary school 40 years ago?
C.W.
Science is understood to be empirlcal. The statement 2 + 2 = 4 does not require consensus. E = MC² was not proven by "scientists agree". 'Consensus' is a political term. You claimed your view to be "rock solid". Produce the numbers. The only acceptable proof is a 'numerical' correlation.
That's the amount of time (mostly young) people have spent playing the Call of Duty video game series.
Lots of learning going on there. Lots of problem-solving skills to apply to global problems.
Epic.
How odd. You must be using a different search engine than I am, because I can find plenty of empirical evidence that supports recent global warming (or climate change if you prefer).
Just for a start, try this. Feel free to post any contrary evidence you find.
Ross.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!
Yes but think of all the wonderful things you've learned by hanging out here... when, instead, you might have been shooting your friends in the face.
I urge anyone who still has doubts to play this video:
Ross.
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
By all means!
The Heartland Institute is one of my favorite sites. Funded by (amongst others) Philip Morris and Exxon Mobil, it represents the very same people who tried to convince us that smoking wasn't dangerous, now trying to convince us the same about global warming. At least they're not silly enough to deny it is happening any more (as they tried to do in their early publications). When the science became irrefutable, they instead started claiming that it will be good thing:
And Popular Technology.net! Not totally loopy, despite being mostly famous for their one-man war on Wikipedia. But they do love to reference the many papers of Dr Sherwood B Idso, and other scientists funded by Exxon Mobil and other fossil-fuel companies. But here also, the site is full of articles that often no longer try to debunk global warming - instead, increasingly they want to tell us how beneficial it is going to be for us. I could quote many of the papers referenced on this site, but here is just one (by Dr Sherwood B Idso, no less!):
Is anyone else beginning to sense a fossil-fueled theme here?
Ross.
Even the paranoid have real enemies............. (Richard M. Nixon)
++++++++++++++++
The problems of global warming have come about just because we have listed to professional experts and waited for a concensus. Professional Experts get paid to arrive at an opinion, so as long as the money flows.. nobody agrees. I am not even sure what a 'real expert' is these days.
All I know is I get 'good expert assistance' in the Parallax Forums, but this is a bit outside the forum's scope.
You should all just go have a cigarette, and take a nice long drive down to the 'grind a tree/ build a Pyramid' sight...
RossH, that is good stuff, Scary, but good.
I've also read that our gps satellites will not be replaced.
I checked the NOAA website which listed global entities such as the U.N. IMO it is possible that one of those international agencies could be authorized to levy taxes.
I experimented with HHO today.I think it's a far better use of my time than studying what NASA has to say.
But at least NASA still knows how to do really cool animation. The NOAA site is a bit dry.
EDIT: Actually, I take back the bit about the NOAA being a bit dry - I think the Global Climate Dashboard on the NOAA site is pretty good!
Ross.