RE: The End of Snow? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DaddySatyr -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 7:54:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

Andrew klavan is my long lost brother.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qldJRY5aGaA

I’m Andrew Klavan and this is the Revolting Truth.

It’s time to take an hysterical and panicky look at fake global warming. Fake global warming is one of the most serious fake problems not actually facing our nation today. According to smarmy billionaire Al Gore, we must take useless and expensive actions immediately or the polar ice caps will be completely melted by two thousand and thirteen… which will be catastrophic when last year arrives.

And the polar bears — oh, the polar bears! Studies reveal that over the last twenty years, as computer models of the climate have progressively damaged computer models of their habitat, the polar bear population has steadily increased. But that’s only in real life! In the computer models, the poor creatures are dropping like flies.

Let’s examine the distorted facts. Between the years 1950 and 2000, the earth’s temperature increased approximately nine tenths of a degree Centigrade. Over the exact same period, the price of butter in Morris County New Jersey rose from 77 cents a pound to nearly four dollars. According to climate change logic, this means that if we give government the power to lower the price of butter in Morris County, the temperature should once again sink back to the levels of the 1950’s. And weren’t the 50‘s a fine old time! Who wouldn’t want those temperatures back again?

I realize there are some superstitious troglodytes who don’t believe in science. They insist we have to go on powering our country with oil and gas instead of using sustainable energy from the holy Vitraya Ramunong tree from that great, great movie Avatar. We’ve explained to them that 97 percent of scientists believe in global warming, but it means nothing to them, even though the number 97 percent has been scientifically selected as the most panic-inducing random number available.

But fake global warming is not just a fake problem for a computer generated future. Even as we speak, it’s creating a pervasive and irritating whining noise that sounds almost exactly like the President of the United States. This must be stopped.

I’m Andrew Klavan with the Revolting Truth.




That might be the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.



Michael




joether -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 8:10:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert (Clarke's Fourth Law). No one who reviews the literature with an open mind can fail to conclude that the science on AGW is manifestly not "settled". Zealots who claim the contrary, and cry "denier!" are religious fanatics promoting a faith-based belief.

To be fair, when it comes to climate change, for every denier, there are a hundred accepters. And the two sides, while opposite, are frequently not 'equal': the deniers are all too often experts in disciplines other than climatology. That human induced climate change is occurring *is* settled, unless one's definition of 'settled' sets an unrealistically high bar. There is a consensus that it's happening. A few on the extreme - therefore we can rightly call them extremists - don't accept it. That's the state of play with the matter, nowadays.


Peon.....When I quote someone, I place their name in the quote. Its to give the writer proper and due credit for their people. I may be liking/disliking the person, liking/disliking what they are saying; but I give them credit none the less. Its a good habit to have in forums like this. So that the person knows you are speaking to them, as I am speaking to you now. You may continue as you have, or consider what I'm suggesting as a better way....

Now then, for stuff you wrote....

There are deniers and then there are believers. I dislike both groups. That's right, I dislike the believers of Climate Change. Both these groups look at the science is near if not totally religious viewpoints. Not by adding in an actual religion, but that their viewpoint is based on beliefs rather than objectively looking at the events. Or conducting experiments, gathering the evidence, making a conclusion and publishing the results. The believers hold to the silly notion that the 'Scientists' are on their side and they are right because they are right and can not be wrong, because...Its Science!

Those that study science, and even make careers of it, know the inherent dangers of both groups. They usually dont have a problem with skeptics. The skeptics understand the science as much as the researchers do. In a way, this helps science in a way religion can not: The ability to correct itself. Christians view God as real, even though there are no evidence suggesting God is real, or has had any connection to the Earth. When research is found to challenge existing knowledge; it is examined in detail. That other scientists will perform the same tests to see if they get the same results. This helps minimize 'flukes' and 'unscrupulous types'. If a cow ever gave birth to parrot, and could prove it, scientifically, would be a major blow to the Theory of Evolution.

The deniers of Evolution would say "See, a parrot was born from that cow, Evolution is wrong, and Creationism is correct!". Except, Creationism's evidence that shows it could be a viable and useful alternative is based on a tiny amount of research. And even that research is tainted. This is not attempt to hijack the thread onto a Creationist/Evolution debate. Its used as a side example and nothing more. The scientists would sit down and figure out....why....the parrot was born from the cow. If it could happen more often. The circumstances and such would be tested. Just like every other concept, things would be studied.

The Theory of Climate Climate change is just that, a theory. But a theory in science is different from the layman's usage of theory. A theory is high level of understanding of a concept. There is a theory of Gravity based on the Laws of Gravity. Those laws are based on millions if not tens of millions of experiments on gravity. Theory of Climate Change is handled no differently.

Scientists (and Skeptics) are no longer on the topic of "Is Climate Change taking place on Planet Earth?'. Nor 'What are the causes of Climate Change on Planet Earth?'. They have studied and found based on the research that Climate Change is indeed taking place on Earth and the cause is mankind. They are now on the topic of 'What do/can we do about this issue?'. For deniers and believers, when they see scientists speak on the concept of Climate Change, they believe the scientists are at the first question still. Or, they get information that has been debated and moved on from; but think the issue is still open for discussion.

Most of the papers being published on Climate Change by the researchers themselves is highly technical material. These papers are from the point of view that the reader either holds a Master's degree, or is every well studied on the subject with a Bachelor's degree. The way these papers are written is to technical for someone with a high school education, even with alot of study. Because if they had been doing the studying, they would have gone off to college and gotten their degree! Thereby, being on the level to understand the material currently being discussed, debated, and studied. Deniers and believers, sadly, and all to often, do not have this perspective nor education. So it can be understood....why....they argue from a position of ignorance.

Now a note on 'elitism'. Often many deniers call scientists and others that study the subject matter, 'elitists'. The view that the scientists know what is right and say in a manner that says 'they are smart and you are dumb'. Yet, dont we want elite people studying things about the planet? The smartest and most educated? And that they report their findings to the people of Earth? No, to the deniers, it doesnt fit in with their simplistic, crude, and outdated level of information. Scientists for the most part, do not speak from a level of snobbish elitist-ism. The problem is that most people do not understand the subject matter fully. If they did, they could be doing the researching and studying themselves. An they would understand the depth and knowledge being known is accurate and true.

So science have a hard time, 'dumb-ing down' the knowledge to those without the education needed to understand the high level stuff. Unfortunately, the good material, and knowledge, is lost in this 'dumb-ing down' process (i.e. the translation). Here is a good video that shows one scientist explaining the science. Mr. Nye starts off by assuming his audience (the host) holds an above average education (like an associate's degree), then lowers it to a high school, and then near the end, to an elementary level. I have not seen someone in the sciences explain the same concept, in the same way, to different educational levels, in one video. But individuals do on a daily basis explain these high level discussions and debates between scientists (and the skeptics) towards others of less educational knowledge. The purpose is not to belittle one's educational level, but to raise it upward!

Learning about things is often 'neat' and 'cool', but does beg the question: "What can we do with this knowledge'? Thanks to one such series of experiments, they found how to place windmills to maximize the energy generated by how air and wind travels through each of several blades. That having them lined up or structured in a uniform manner does not maximized output. But staggering them in an un-uniformed manner does. I found that information in a science magazine and just remembering it now. I wonder if I could find the information out now. We understand how to make better systems in industry that reduces the problems being created. As a by-product of this engineering and using science, in some cases, increases the efficiency of production, the safety of workers or both!




joether -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 8:53:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
Andrew klavan is my long lost brother.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qldJRY5aGaA

I’m Andrew Klavan and this is the Revolting Truth.

It’s time to take an hysterical and panicky look at fake global warming. Fake global warming is one of the most serious fake problems not actually facing our nation today. According to smarmy billionaire Al Gore, we must take useless and expensive actions immediately or the polar ice caps will be completely melted by two thousand and thirteen… which will be catastrophic when last year arrives.

And the polar bears — oh, the polar bears! Studies reveal that over the last twenty years, as computer models of the climate have progressively damaged computer models of their habitat, the polar bear population has steadily increased. But that’s only in real life! In the computer models, the poor creatures are dropping like flies.

Let’s examine the distorted facts. Between the years 1950 and 2000, the earth’s temperature increased approximately nine tenths of a degree Centigrade. Over the exact same period, the price of butter in Morris County New Jersey rose from 77 cents a pound to nearly four dollars. According to climate change logic, this means that if we give government the power to lower the price of butter in Morris County, the temperature should once again sink back to the levels of the 1950’s. And weren’t the 50‘s a fine old time! Who wouldn’t want those temperatures back again?

I realize there are some superstitious troglodytes who don’t believe in science. They insist we have to go on powering our country with oil and gas instead of using sustainable energy from the holy Vitraya Ramunong tree from that great, great movie Avatar. We’ve explained to them that 97 percent of scientists believe in global warming, but it means nothing to them, even though the number 97 percent has been scientifically selected as the most panic-inducing random number available.

But fake global warming is not just a fake problem for a computer generated future. Even as we speak, it’s creating a pervasive and irritating whining noise that sounds almost exactly like the President of the United States. This must be stopped.

I’m Andrew Klavan with the Revolting Truth.

That might be the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.


That neither of you asked the most obvious questions and check the information from....why....the phenomenon takes place is sad. Your both deniers....

Does the host explain....where....he got his information from?

I believe I explained this silly moron's viewpoint on 'The polar ice caps will melt by 2013' above in post #45. If either of you had read it and checked the information (more importantly); you would have picked up on this obvious lie. That the host passes it off a 'truth' and 'fact' shows the level of scientific dishonesty on display. I'm not asking you to believe the science, just study it and make an informed and objective analysis of the discussions and evidence.

Lets take the polar bear issue brought up by the video's 'host on science'.....

Where does the information come from the host uses to make the argument that the polar bear population on the planet is growing? Does he explain why it is growing?

A researcher or scientist would explain the information, and...where...it comes from. Usually noting the scientist(s) and from where they are located (i.e. a university) and in some cases the name of the study itself. That gives proper credit, were proper credit is due. A skeptic would also do much of this, as they were stating they disagree with the scientists on the exact specifics. This host is neither a scientist/researcher nor a science skeptic; he's a denier!

Who do you think knows more about polar bears? A host pushing a political bullshit argument? Or a researcher on Polar Bears?

Didn't like that one? How about this researcher?

That you accept the information on polar bears....without...checking on it is inexcusable. When I hear the host say this I was curious (because curious people...LOVE...science). "Is such a thing true?, lets go research it'! Didn't take me long to find information. And the information from....ACTUAL....researchers helps explain the facts and evidence. When you remove poaching with laws, the population tends to grow. When you set up habitats for animals to live and hunt, their population tends to grow. And this has been noted not just with polar bears, but other animals as well.

Why didnt the host explain it? Would not have taken to long. He could have spoken for an additional minute or two to explain the facts and where the information comes from. Your going to tell me this denier couldn't talk for additional minute? Please.....spare me the bullshit!

In the video @ 1:39: "We’ve explained to them that 97 percent of scientists believe in global warming, but it means nothing to them, even though the number 97 percent has been scientifically selected as the most panic-inducing random number available."

Scientists don't believe it, they understand the facts. I dont believe Theory of Evolution is true, for example. Based on the facts and evidence collected so far, the Theory does seem correct and true. Is it possible for it not to be correct and true? Of course! Got some actual evidence I can examine (and on another thread)? That people use belief in place of understanding is a language correction, not a statement of actual belief (i.e. into religion). Its easier to say "I believe in the Theory of Evolution' than 'Based on the facts and evidence collected so far, the Theory does seem correct and true.", right? Its understanding language and coding of concepts in the human brain rather than the Theory of Evolution that is at fault here.

The host does not explain who these scientists are, nor where he gets this information from. Here is where that number comes from Its not people, but papers on the subject matter. And this examination was not by a pro-science or pro-Theory of Climate Change person/organization; but a Skeptic....






PeonForHer -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 9:56:49 AM)

quote:

Peon.....When I quote someone, I place their name in the quote. Its to give the writer proper and due credit for their people. I may be liking/disliking the person, liking/disliking what they are saying; but I give them credit none the less. Its a good habit to have in forums like this. So that the person knows you are speaking to them, as I am speaking to you now. You may continue as you have, or consider what I'm suggesting as a better way....


I assume that people will look at the bottom right hand corner and will see the name of the person to whom I'm responding, Joe. That suffices for me.

As for the rest of the post: not sure why you're replying to me on that. But interesting points.




Kirata -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 4:02:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

That human induced climate change is occurring *is* settled, unless one's definition of 'settled' sets an unrealistically high bar. There is a consensus that it's happening. A few on the extreme - therefore we can rightly call them extremists - don't accept it. That's the state of play with the matter, nowadays.

Science does not advance by votes, and labeling scientists who disagree as "extremists" is itself a definition of extremism.

K.





Kirata -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 4:12:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I assume that people will look at the bottom right hand corner and will see the name of the person to whom I'm responding, Joe. That suffices for me.

How nice for you. Now check the bottom right hand corner on this one:

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4712181

K.




Tkman117 -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 5:51:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

That human induced climate change is occurring *is* settled, unless one's definition of 'settled' sets an unrealistically high bar. There is a consensus that it's happening. A few on the extreme - therefore we can rightly call them extremists - don't accept it. That's the state of play with the matter, nowadays.

Science does not advance by votes, and labeling scientists who disagree as "extremists" is itself a definition of extremism.

K.




No, science is advanced by research, and those who refute the mountains of credible research in support of political ideologies or money which could very well halt progress in preventing potential horendous outcomes are not really much different from most other extremists we know and love today.




PeonForHer -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 5:52:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

That human induced climate change is occurring *is* settled, unless one's definition of 'settled' sets an unrealistically high bar. There is a consensus that it's happening. A few on the extreme - therefore we can rightly call them extremists - don't accept it. That's the state of play with the matter, nowadays.

Science does not advance by votes, and labeling scientists who disagree as "extremists" is itself a definition of extremism.

K.




For one thing, in this day and age, things have changed, K. The state of science isn't what it was. For another - extremists can be called that by people who are themselves extremists: but that doesn't apply in this case. At least when we're talking about the sheer percentages.




PeonForHer -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 5:54:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I assume that people will look at the bottom right hand corner and will see the name of the person to whom I'm responding, Joe. That suffices for me.

How nice for you. Now check the bottom right hand corner on this one:

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4712181

K.



Sorry, who are you talking to?

ETA: Sorry, silly me - you were to talking to me, as it points out in the bottom right hand corner of your post.




Lucylastic -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 6:18:11 PM)

How many peer reviewed climate denial papers are there, what support is there for them?




PeonForHer -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 6:42:51 PM)

One comment:

"I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/


Some more stats here:

chttp://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php


But, but ... we know where this is going to go. Cue the pro and anti links ....




Lucylastic -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 6:46:34 PM)

smirks, it was just an innocent question[;)][:D]




PeonForHer -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 6:48:56 PM)

No it wasn't. It was a rather naughty question, Lucy.




Tkman117 -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 7:32:02 PM)

FR

A good article explaining the cold temperatures much of north america has been experiencing:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-arctic-weird-weather.html




UnholyBear -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 7:51:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

FR

A good article explaining the cold temperatures much of north america has been experiencing:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-arctic-weird-weather.html



http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/pastglobalwarming

Yet the article from the link I supplied also indicates that global warming could also be a natural cycle that happens on earth and has happened several times over earth's history, especially when you look at global warming from a geological time scale.




Sanity -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 8:07:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

FR

A good article explaining the cold temperatures much of north america has been experiencing:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-arctic-weird-weather.html


Most normal people can describe this bizarre phenomenon in one word

Its called "Winter"




Kirata -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 8:11:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UnholyBear
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

A good article explaining the cold temperatures much of north america has been experiencing:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-arctic-weird-weather.html

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/pastglobalwarming

Yet the article from the link I supplied also indicates that global warming could also be a natural cycle that happens on earth and has happened several times over earth's history, especially when you look at global warming from a geological time scale.

You mean, it isn't settled? [:)]

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
    David Bellamy, botanist.
    Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
    Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
    Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University
    Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
    Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
    Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
    Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University
    Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science
    Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
    Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
    Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
    Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
    Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry
    Zbigniew Jaworowski, physician and ice core researcher.
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
    Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
    Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg
    Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
    Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
    Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
    David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
    Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
    William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
    William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
    Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
    Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
    David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
    Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
    Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
    Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
    Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.
    Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
    Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University
    Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
    Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo
    Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
    Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
    Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
    Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
    George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
    Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
    Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
    Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
    Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
    John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.
    Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
    Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.
    Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
    Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
    Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
    Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
    Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
    Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia
Source

K.




Tkman117 -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 8:12:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UnholyBear


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

FR

A good article explaining the cold temperatures much of north america has been experiencing:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-arctic-weird-weather.html



http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/pastglobalwarming

Yet the article from the link I supplied also indicates that global warming could also be a natural cycle that happens on earth and has happened several times over earth's history, especially when you look at global warming from a geological time scale.


Except the natural cycles have never happened at the rate we have seen before. Please name the cycle you are referring to and we can look at it in more detail.




joether -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 8:26:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UnholyBear
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
A good article explaining the cold temperatures much of north america has been experiencing:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-arctic-weird-weather.html

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/pastglobalwarming

Yet the article from the link I supplied also indicates that global warming could also be a natural cycle that happens on earth and has happened several times over earth's history, especially when you look at global warming from a geological time scale.


I think your miss understanding this article and what is currently understood on the topic of 'Theory of Climate Change'. While the article does mention 'climate change', it explains it as 'something like it'; not 'a duplicate' or 'copy'. Do you not think scientists take into account observed warm/cold cycles of the planet?

When exactly in the 56,000,000 years ago, was this near 'climate change' events taking place? 56,120,202 BC? 56, 739,292 BC? How about the year 56,000,0001 BC? What would happen if the planet was really warm for a million years (as your article suggests)? .

But the issue of 'what is causing Climate Change' has been settled (post #62). Scientists and the skeptics have moved on from that question.




Kirata -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 8:33:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The issue of 'what is causing Climate Change' has been settled.

Something is settled alright, but it's not what you think.

K.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625