Global warming hoax fools millions

Someone said that Fox News was ego affirmation masking as news. Someone to tell the viewer that he's "right." Clearly you're seeking ego affirmation.

 

How would you describe MSNBC? I mean other than as an arm of the Obama campaign? For that matter NBC, CBS and ABC?

 

My final thoughts on the issue. Bigdave, I’ve enjoyed the back and forth with you. Gave me a reason to gain a little more knowledge on the issue. Visiting weather and climate sights, reading a few graphs (beside market charts), etc... kind of makes me miss my wx days.

On the surface, and having experience in a related field (even if only slightly related), I have previously been skeptical of modeling for this reason:

Regarding info gathering for the last century:

Temperature data. There needs to be a relative amount of increase shown (global avg) along with the CO2 increase (global avg), which has been shown.

Up until the mid 90's temperature data at various altitudes was limited to aircraft readings, radiosonde (one of my specialties in the early 80's), and rockets. There may be a few others. I don’t believe CO2 was collected at multiple sights until the 70’s (beyond Mauna Loa). Is that correct?

Dave, if you would like, check this out. This was the final phase of the upper air sounding back in my day.
http://leonardo.met.tamu.edu/class/atmo251/Skew-T.pdf

I can say with certainty that with the exception of ships, there were no other upper air ob stations within 1'000 miles in any direction where I did my launches. I state that only to point out how limited temp data at altitude was until recently. Satellites can now determine temp at altitude by measuring the temp of the gasses at those levels (atmospheric sounding.) Since recent data must be compared with historical data, the quantity of the data needs to be a factor. As bigdave had previously stated, the scientist loading the supercomputers are well aware of all the data issues. You work with what you have. That’s what extrapolation is about. Plotting upper air data required considerable extrapolation, so I know. The more you have to work with, the better chance your extrapolations will be correct.

Surface temp data is accurate for centuries, and can accurately be determined much further back into time by other methods discussed in the thread. I can’t comment on how accurate methods previously mentioned are at determining what temperatures at various altitudes were historically for determining a baseline. Again, that’s for the PhD’s.

I have friends who went to work for NWS, and they would agree with my reasons for skepticism (limited amounts of atmospheric temp data for the models). Knowing the amount of trapping CO2 causes, however, helps to offset that concern. So do articles like this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080530144943.htm
Like myself, they also know when you look out over any major city and see cubic miles of shit in the air, it’s not all coming back down. Chemical reactions will occur. Think about what happens to a city when you have a stalled fair-weather system and a trapping inversion above. Haze and smog increase by the day. It can quickly become pretty nasty. Picture that on a global scale. It’s not quite the same, but you get the idea. I don’t think one needs to understand math and science to see that. It’s just common sense.

I am a former R who bailed from the party and put an I in front of my name about 5 years ago (not because of this issue, but many others). My ideology is best described as libertarian, though I would never vote for Barr (or the other two). I think it’s a fucking shame that this issue had to become a political one. I sincerely mean that. As Dave indicated, we can’t afford to get this one wrong. I could sure get over my skepticism a lot easier if it wasn’t being so politicized. That’s why I would like to see a solution that fixes the emissions issue without directly addressing it (emphasis on a better economy as a result of a solution). That would eliminate all the agenda theories. I won’t be holding my breath, though. Peace...

 

Thanks, you too.

Here's a chart to leave you with:

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig2-CO2-Temp.gif

Never trade against the trend.

Bye for now.

 

Anyone quoting lists of scientists to defend a scientific hypothesis is missing the point.

There are groups of scientists at evangelical universities who sign statements declaring the earth to be 10,000 or so years old, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence for that hypothesis.

There were groups of scientists in the past who accepted geocentric theory and spontaneous generation. Of course, evidence established the error of those positions.

Science is not done by poll, but is based on verifiable, empirical, and quantifiable evidence.

 

This is probably the strongest evidence in favor of the hypothesis that human activity has impact on global warming. At the very least, it will probably delay the next ice age.

 

RED ALERTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THERE WILL BE NO ICE IN THE ARCTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU (YES YOU, LADDIE), ARE TO BLAME IF YOU DON'T START RIDING YOUR BIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080917-sea-ice.html

 

One question, Does It Involve Commercially Breeding Human Embryos?

 

it's been a well established fact that the primary source of CO2 in the atmosphere are oceans.....

You're working on a law against that, aren't you

 

I ASKED YOU A FUCKING QUESTION:


Does It Involve Commercially Breeding Human Embryos?


ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION