Faux science of global warming doesn't pass legal scrutiny.

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
Gs, there's a reason there is a compendium threwad for you. We all know what you are going to say on any particular subject. Your rigid adherence to neocon and in some respects reactionary ideals is as predictable as the sun rising in the East.

Having said that, I would buy you a beer if I happened to run across you one day.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Do you mime??
 
#28
#28
TennTradition said:
So, several of the things found just before Copenhagen were a big deal, but the things that this article highlights are kind of funny. I like this error:



Oh, no!
Click to expand...

This is the nature of much of the criticism. It's nit-picking.
 
#29
#29
VolsNSkinsFan said:
yea, I know, I like to play the well its hot as blazes over here/it snowing over there game
Click to expand...

Weather is variable from region to region. People seem to confuse weather events with climate. Some spokepersons such as Al Gore are part of the problem in perpetuating that misconception.
 
#30
#30
TennTradition said:
So, several of the things found just before Copenhagen were a big deal, but the things that this article highlights are kind of funny. I like this error:



Oh, no!
Click to expand...

also found several other errors in the IPCC report on regional impacts of climate change
Click to expand...

Even then, all that is theoretical.

This is a group theoretical projections based upon another theory that is highly dubious in nature and some argue can only be made by inserting false data.

Theories are interesting things to talk about but one needs to prove the theory true to some extent before taking action, especially drastic action that will drastically change everything about our nation.

The Rockets’ Red Glare? : Stop The ACLU

Or is it really intended to be a giant step toward the goal of world socialism that we know to be so near and dear to so many in the Obama administration?
Click to expand...




IPorange said:
This is the nature of much of the criticism. It's nit-picking.
Click to expand...

The whole theory is bankrupt, a cobled together bunch of pseudo-sciences pasted together in order to make alarming predictions about the next (man made) mass extinction!!! Every major study that supports the alarmists either has falsified data or omitted data, not only that it has been revealed that there was colusion and colaboration behind the scenes among the top alarmists to try to get their stories straight and hide things they didn't want the public to know about.

Just yesterday the local propaganda news rag ran another alarmist report compiled from two wildly left leaning study groups working together and made just that forcast mentioning past mass extinctinctions caused by natural phenomina such as volcanoes but then where is the study of active undersea volcanoes today and their impact on the oceans??

There is no study of which I am aware.

They say the ocean surface has warmed one degree in the last century and then wildly leap to the conclusion that this is a fact about which should be extremely alarmed and that warming has been caused by man and omit any possibility of nature having more impact than man.

SERIOUSLY???

albert+einstein.jpg


What if it had cooled one degree over the last century?? Should we be more alarmed, less alarmed, equally alarmed or just a bit less paranoid???

After all the Earth has been warming and cooling for a far back as we can know!!

So far every prediction made by the global warming, climate change do dos has been WRONG, except for one and we won't be able to tell if that works until 2100!!

And even if that long range forcast is correct, that is nothing to be concerned about, more than likely life on Earth would be better if it does come true.

A more realistic forcast is for Earth's climate to slightly cool over the next thirty years.
 
#31
#31
We are currently in a period of mass extinction, global warming or not. Not sure how you can argue that...
 
#33
#33
We offer no explanation for why global temperatures are changing now or have changed in the past, but it seems abundantly clear that the recent temperature rise is not caused by the rise in CO2 levels.
Click to expand...
Simple really. The earth has a self correcting mechanism to moderate changes in sun intensity. The sun does not put off a constant amount of energy- that is a documented reality.

The notion that warming due to sun activity causes atmospheric change is completely reasonable and consistent with the real data.
 
#34
#34
IPorange said:
We are currently in a period of mass extinction, global warming or not. Not sure how you can argue that...
Click to expand...

Won't argue it... or the direct implications of this and previous mass extinction events.
 
#35
#35
sjt18 said:
Simple really. The earth has a self correcting mechanism to moderate changes in sun intensity. The sun does not put off a constant amount of energy- that is a documented reality.

The notion that warming due to sun activity causes atmospheric change is completely reasonable and consistent with the real data.
Click to expand...

This is true to a point, and in no way counter to GCC theory. Solar activity is the source of global climate, and is variable.

As far as "self correcting mechanism," that sounds very "GAIA hypothesis" to me. I think there are positive and negative feedbacks that tend to regulate things, but there isn't a "correct" state to "correct" to.
 
#36
#36
I believe you are incorrect. Regardless of how long you think life has existed on the planet... the avg temps have fallen within a fairly narrow range during that entire span. The "state" being corrected to is the "state" necessary for life to exist and continue.

PS- No GAIA hypothesis needed... I believe as you know that the earth was designed to function as it does.
 
#37
#37
IPorange said:
We are currently in a period of mass extinction, global warming or not. Not sure how you can argue that...
Click to expand...

You jest??

There may be some species who are becoming extinct, others endangered but this is nothing like mass extinction events in Earth's history.

The alarmist have blown actuality totally out of proportion to reality.

Argue away, I am prepared to enter that debate.

Screw a bunch of delta smelt!!!!!
 
#38
#38
sjt18 said:
I believe you are incorrect. Regardless of how long you think life has existed on the planet... the avg temps have fallen within a fairly narrow range during that entire span. The "state" being corrected to is the "state" necessary for life to exist and continue.

PS- No GAIA hypothesis needed... I believe as you know that the earth was designed to function as it does.
Click to expand...

What span? Where are you starting from?
 
#40
#40
gsvol said:
You jest??

There may be some species who are becoming extinct, others endangered but this is nothing like mass extinction events in Earth's history.

The alarmist have blown actuality totally out of proportion to reality.

Argue away, I am prepared to enter that debate.

Screw a bunch of delta smelt!!!!!
Click to expand...

It's all about scale of time. We know that hundreds of species have gone extinct and hundreds more heading towards it in the last few hundred years alone to the success of humans, the modification of their environment (draining swamps, fragmenting wilderness, pollution pressures) and even direct interaction with various species and ecosystems. Compared to previous mass extinction events that occurred over larger spans of time, we are well on our way.
 
#44
#44
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Denver CO... High today 61 degrees, the coldest high temp on record for July 7th.
Click to expand...

See, you say you are just joking around- that you know that weather and climate aren't the same- but you keep making the same "joke."

You do understand they are completely different metrics, and that the word "global" is very, VERY key in the terms "global climate change" and global warming?
 
#45
#45
i am just trying to make a point that when I turn on the NBC evening news tonight, the headline story will be about how hot it is in the East, when its record cold in the west.
 
#46
#46
IP you seem passionate about this mass exention. I am pretty uppity with the news and dont hear about this. Whats dying off and what are we supoosed to do about it?
 
#48
#48
sjt18 said:
From a creationist perspective, I'm talking about the last 6K to 40K years.

From your perspective, any period that supported higher life forms.
Click to expand...

So you take the entire record, and compress it into 40K to 6K? How can you be sure that the beginning of the record is really the beginning then, if you don't have any dating methods of your own and clearly don't trust mainstream science's dating techniques?
 
#49
#49
Species are going extinct at a rate that alarms evolutionists.

It suggests a few uncomfortable things for them. First, the possibility that the extinctions will break food chains so severely that extinction will spread further and higher on the food chain...

But it also has some implications for the theory itself. This may not be a unique occurrence in history... in fact, the evidence is that it isn't. Evolution if it works at all works so slowly that it could never create replacement species fast enough. Worse yet, species are dying because they are butting up against the limits of their ability to adapt... in direct support of a creationist criticism of the idea species evolve upward via any observed, natural genetic shift.

Bottom line, the rate of extinction suggests that the ToE is insufficient to explain life on Earth.

BTW IPO... the theory I presented to you where "kinds" were created with large amounts of genetic variability... has no problem with this event.
 
#50
#50
IPorange said:
So you take the entire record, and compress it into 40K to 6K? How can you be sure that the beginning of the record is really the beginning then, if you don't have any dating methods of your own and clearly don't trust mainstream science's dating techniques?
Click to expand...

No one should trust a dating method based on circular reasoning. If I were certain, I would have given a more specific number.

However, the evidence we have for past climates supports what I'm saying regardless of which you use- ice cores, tree rings, et al.

Are you claiming that highly developed life has existed on this planet with a radically different average surface temp?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top