Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
so you, as the only apparent active moderator, are categorically stating you approve of this nonsense... to the point you are actively encouraging it? Is that correct?
How can Canadians not believe in AGW? The country is changing all around us in the span of a single lifetime. And the real scientists are telling us that our eyes are not deceiving us.
To the sceptics - ten solid scientific papers supporting your case, please.
To the sceptics - ten solid scientific papers supporting your case, please.
as per walleye waldo
note: per CC Rules --- You are free to express your views forcefully but we require you to remain civil. Insults, hate speech, and deliberately inflammatory statements, commonly known as trolling, are not acceptable.
can you say hypocrite? ROFLMFAO
All the real scientists? Are you stating that any scientist that questions AGW isn't
a real scientist? How about one paper, or link, or whatever....supporting this claim?
The Sound Of Settled Science
Long-term oscillations in rainfall extremes in a 268 year daily time series
Long-term oscillations in rainfall extremes in a 268 year daily time series
These results suggest that, because long-term periodicities may likely be present elsewhere, in the absence of observational time series with length comparable to such periodicities (possibly exceeding one century), past observations cannot be considered to be representative of future extremes.
The Sound Of Settled Science - Small Dead Animals
The Sound Of Settled Science - Small Dead Animals
Newly released research, primarily from NASA and the GFZ German Research Center for Geosciences, indicates that melting of selective Greenland Glaciers is related to geologically induced heat flow, and not manmade atmospheric global warming.
Previous articles posted here and here have documented the effect of geologically induced geothermal heat flow on the West Antarctic continent and Arctic Ocean Ice Sheets. In both cases relatively recent research was used to show natural variations in climate, climate-related events, and warmed from geothermal heat. You can learn more about plate climatology and global warming here.
more
Greenland Ice Melt Geothermal, Not Manmade
Previous articles posted here and here have documented the effect of geologically induced geothermal heat flow on the West Antarctic continent and Arctic Ocean Ice Sheets. In both cases relatively recent research was used to show natural variations in climate, climate-related events, and warmed from geothermal heat. You can learn more about plate climatology and global warming here.
more
Greenland Ice Melt Geothermal, Not Manmade
What do geologists know about the earth? All they know how to do is ruin it by exploring for oil and gas. Real scientist like climate scientist study the earth over time and the systems therein.
It's probably closer to to saying anyone with a strong undersdtanding of science isn't likely to be a denier. Which is true. Even the skeptic sciences the deniers like to quoite aren't actually all that skeptical.
Melting? I thought it was cooling? These guys gotta make up thier minds. And one minute they're on about NASA cooking the books, and then posting a study by NASA to make their point. This is why nobody takes the deniers seriously.
Poor waldo even his sources are conspiring against him.
People that can think for themselves take the deniers seriously. It is only those that got the religion that don't.
How many dollars were we supposed to send to third world countries to make it go away?
People that can think for themselves take the deniers seriously. It is only those that got the religion that don't.
How many dollars were we supposed to send to third world countries to make it go away?
The Arctic is melting. This is plain to see. It is objectviably verifiable by dozens of ways, not the least of which is people up there seeing it with their own eyes. Whether or not you can "think for yourself" doesn't change that. The fact that people can see this for themselves is why no one takes the deniers seriously.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Not seeing much change in sea ice here.
Not seeing much change in sea ice here.
Good question. The first thing you have to know about the deniers is that they do not hold an internalyl consistent position. This is because their opposition to AGW is primarily ideological. The standard Denier Canticle proceeds thusly:
1. The planet is cooling.
2. The planet is not warming.
3. The planet may be warming a little bit but it's got nothing to do with humans.
4. Maybe humans have a little to do with it, but we're a bit player.
5. OK, maybe we do have soemthing to do with it, but don't worry, it's all good anyways.
I see you are at number 4 right now. Maybe in a couple of hours you'll be back to Number 1 again.
The Arctic is melting. That much is plain to see.
No, but it's pretty clear that the Arctic is melting.
In terms of the AGW debate the opposite of "deniers" is "true believers."
How about just the opposite of, as in terms of the AGW thing it's used as
a derogatory term much of the time. I actually tried to google this and gave
gave up after a couple of minutes....as the search just kept leading to old
French coins or AGW debating tips....& I was just looking for a word that
was the opposite of "deniers"....& I found this kind'a weird.
I used to refer to opponenets of AGW as "skeptics." But they aren't skeptics--they are actually quite credulous if it supports their viewpoint. So skeptic seemed like the wrong word. Some deniers are sceptics--Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, etc. Scientists questioning the underpinnings of AGW theory. But most deniers are just ideologues.