Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Dude, the more you post, the more you make the case that the Global Warming proponents are fanatics who are trying desperately to choose the facts to fit their conclusion.
I was going to ask if you'd ever taken a course in science. What you really need is a class in logic.
(Insert personal political preference) Wow, you are a great liberal unlike all these mean liberals posting comments. When are liberals going to realize that if they just do exactly what I say and believe what I believe, then I won't call them whining douche bags anymore. Oh, and I agree with you about everything, which is strange because I don't normally agree with liberals.
Cut and paste people.
Right after she blasts the Fairness Doctrine, CP mentions the disastrous invasion of Iraq, which happens to be Exhibit A in showing why the Fairness Doctrine is necessary. (Remember when MSNBC canned Phil Donahue's show, despite having the network's highest ratings, because he was challenging the coming war?)
It's characteristically disingenuous of CP to wonder why liberals can't succeed in talk radio while ignoring the fact that too many station owners prefer conservative shows. (The MSM's "undeniable liberal bias" is a particularly threadbare cliche.)
Is excoriated as right wing insanity. Please refer to your handbook. Thank you.
In other words, the jury is still out, but the evidence so far indicates that Mizz Paglia is quite correct.
We study the solar impact on 400 years of a global surface temperature record since 1600. This period includes the pre-industrial era (roughly 1600–1800 or 1600–1900), when negligible amount of anthropogenic-added climate forcing was present and the sun realistically was the only climate force affecting climate on a secular scale, and the industrial era (roughly since 1800–1900), when anthropogenic-added climate forcing has been present in some degree.... We find good correspondence between global temperature and solar induced temperature curves during the pre-industrial period such as the cooling periods occurring during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and the Dalton Minimum (1795–1825). The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.... In any case, as some authors have already noted, solar change effects are greater than what can be explained by several climate models.
--N. Scafetta and B. J. West, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 15 September 2006
Nota bene: This is not conclusive PROOF of anything. ALL the climate theories are THEORIES.
like this saildude - isn't he wonderful -
HEY YOU you forgot to mention that right now it's really cold in Germany and that proofs that there is no Global Warming - call Camilla!
For example, it was thought that once we mapped the genome we would be able to cure all sorts of diseases. But it turned out that the interactions between genes were much more complicated than previously thought.
This is not to say that global warming theories are incorrect. However, the debate "out here", away from the research, is often political rather than scientific and so is dependent on personal biases.
If the research presented to the public can't overcome these biases, then that's a problem...unless what the public thinks doesn't matter.
trolls work better in the right thread
What the public thinks DOES matter, as it allows politicians to gain power if the public can can be sold a nebulous, weak THEORY as fact. I suspect you realize that.
The whole purpose of the global warming theory, just as was the "nuclear winter" theory and the "An Ice Age is Coming, An Ice Age is Coming!" hysteria of the 1970s (from the same folks who bring you the global warming hysteria) is to stampede the public into allowing politicians to grasp more and more power.
I only come to Salon for Glenn Greeenwald.
Pretty smart, am I not?
But yet another "conservative think tank" that doesn't publish peer-reviewed science. They also flat out lied about the consensus on warming, claiming that 500 scientists agreed with them, 45 of which asked to be removed from their list, and many of which had no specialty at all in climatology (such as economists and clinical psychologists, etc). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
I'm not surprised at all that it's the best that Sails could come up with.
Sorry you're so old (based on your own description) and humorless (based on mine.) I DO computer modeling. Garbage in, garbage out. The computer age is in its infancy and I'm quite dismayed to see that a physicist has such deep faith in the infallibility of technology that he has lost all sight of its (thus far) vast inadequacies. So you're SURE that all inputted climate data is absolutely accurate, eh?... RUBBISH! ...Well, now, THERE's something to be concerned about. The pollution of our oceans with plastic. Why don't you help us all out by exercising your multitudinous brain cells on that problem? By the way, what makes you think I'm any younger than you? (Maybe it's because my writing isn't as GROUCHY.)
He is merely unavailable.
Renegade IconoclastDude, the more you post, the more you make the case that the Global Warming proponents are fanatics who are trying desperately to choose the facts to fit their conclusion.
I was going to ask if you'd ever taken a course in science. What you really need is a class in logic.
Isn't it interesting that those who call you illogical so often don't even make a token effort to refute you?
There's nothing illogical about asking you to back up your claims with science, or pointing out that there's a lot more to climate science than just computer models. It is illogical, however, to dismiss the consensus of multiple scientific disciplines out of hand (paleoclimatology, climatology, geology, archaeology, to name a few).
I repeat, when your competing theory makes accurate predictions about warming, then you'll have something. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.
In fact, the main thing wrong with the predictions so far is that warming is accelerating faster than expected.
You know what's illogical? Throwing your hands in the air, and saying there's nothing we can do to stop a global catastrophe. Even if the deniers were right that humans aren't causing global warming, it doesn't prove we can't stop it, either, and yes, the entirety of the icecaps melting would be a bad thing, not a good thing.
If the majority of scientists are wrong, the logical thing to do is to find out why global warming is happening, and see what we can do to curtail it.
So far, the deniers have no theory of their own, just a lot of hypotheses without evidence, proving that their real goal is simply to be contrarian, not to actually solve any problems.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
