Global Warming - Page 62

B L Zeebub · #**611** (**permalink**) 05-05-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

It's hard to tell since 9500 temperature monitoring stations were shut down, many of them in the cold climate Soviet Union. Monitoring the earth's temperature with one third of the monitoring stations is bound to give flawed results.

Where were you Prof, when I asked "does masterbation cause global warming" I still worry, but not enough to stop

Professor Peabody · #**612** (**permalink**) 05-05-2008, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Question for C-D-P, SpankyTheWhale, Professor Peabody, PatriotNews and anyone else: Do you accept that the global temperature is increasing but deny humans are responsible or do you not even deny that the global temperature is increasing?

Global temperature has been fluctuating since the beginning of time. We aren't even close to the temperature of the spike during medieval times. The fact CO2 comprises 3 100ths of our atmosphere or at approx 300 parts per million. The EPA permits our drinking water to have 15 parts per billion of lead. I am finding it extremely hard to believe man's effect on such a tiny number can cause as profound of an effect as what is being said. Sorry, you need some hard evidence it's not the sun's radiance.

TheChief · #**613** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MannieD

Question for C-D-P, SpankyTheWhale, Professor Peabody, PatriotNews and anyone else: Do you accept that the global temperature is increasing but deny humans are responsible or do you not even deny that the global temperature is increasing?

Of coarse global temperatures are increasing (even if ift at a very lapsed rate) nobodys denying that but were not the ones causing it.

MannieD · #**614** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpankyTheWhale

.... sci-fi gypsy fortune teller crap. ....

My bold.
If you think that the research being done by scientists who have spent years learning about their fields is "sci-fi gypsy fortune teller crap", then I have nothing further to discuss with you. Thank you for your input.

MannieD · #**615** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

Bug.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/A...gger_from_data

I will not engage you further until you can have an adult conversation.

This is a strawman argument. For the critism of NASA to be valid, you have to assume that "the United States was considered the best at taking analyzing temperatures." is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

Mannie.

It is not that the temp is or is not rising. It is how the whole thing is done.

The models and data are fouled, the percentages of what we actually produce do not meet with the claims. The GW guys do not seem to be looking at alternative causes. There is just too much junk science.

Could GW be happening? Maybe. Could we be the cause? Maybe. But why spend so much money finding out if we are the cause? We all know that pollution is bad (maybe not for the environment, maybe it is. But it is bad for us). Why not divert all this wasted money elsewhere? Hell we may never know what or who is really to blame.

I tried bringing this up earlier in the thread, but was attacked. Can anyone give me an answer in an adult manner? If not then please do us all a favor and hit the back button.

I am tired of talking about who is wrong, and who is right. That is all this forum is. Why not talk about solutions and how to deal with stuff?

This is fricking idiotic.

A few questions come to mind
How long is "long enough"? Shouldn't it be about the data and evidence and not length of time?
If the data and models are fouled up, why do so many scientists, (including Dr.Landsea, so often used to try to discredit AGW) trust them? Why are bloggers who question the accuracy of the data more credible than the scientists doing the research? How much money will it cost if the scientists are right and the bloggers wrong? How can you have solutions if you don't know what the problem is? What "wasted money"?

beachbum · #**616** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 05:13 AM

if global wasming is true then how much has the global temperature changed since 1900?

Professor Peabody · #**617** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MannieD

My bold.
If you think that the research being done by scientists who have spent years learning about their fields is "sci-fi gypsy fortune teller crap", then I have nothing further to discuss with you. Thank you for your input.

Mannie, how can the data possibly be accurate if 2/3rds of the temperature monitoring stations were shut down between 1070 and 2000? Can the computer climate models run backwards and accurately predict what we know has already happened? Unless they can do that how can their predictions for the future be trusted. I'm not doubting the scientists, but the data they're using to draw their conclusions. Garbage in....garbage out.

Professor Peabody · #**618** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Mannie, how can the data possibly be accurate if 2/3rds of the temperature monitoring stations were shut down between 1070 and 2000? Can the computer climate models run backwards and accurately predict what we know has already happened? Unless they can do that how can their predictions for the future be trusted. I'm not doubting the scientists, but the data they're using to draw their conclusions. Garbage in....garbage out.

1070 should be 1970

SpankyTheWhale · #**619** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Mannie, how can the data possibly be accurate if 2/3rds of the temperature monitoring stations were shut down between 1070 and 2000? Can the computer climate models run backwards and accurately predict what we know has already happened? Unless they can do that how can their predictions for the future be trusted. I'm not doubting the scientists, but the data they're using to draw their conclusions. Garbage in....garbage out.

Not to mention the fact that most global warming scientists are bought off. There is not much money in denying global warming, but there is a lot of money in "proving" global warming exists.

MannieD · #**620** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 11:51 AM

Professor Peabody
I'm having trouble following your logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Mars has also been experiencing global warming. Since man can't be a factor on that planet, doesn't it suggest that perhaps a factor other than man, i.e. the sun, is responsible for the warming on both planets?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Global temperature has been fluctuating since the beginning of time. We aren't even close to the temperature of the spike during medieval times. The fact CO2 comprises 3 100ths of our atmosphere or at approx 300 parts per million. The EPA permits our drinking water to have 15 parts per billion of lead. I am finding it extremely hard to believe man's effect on such a tiny number can cause as profound of an effect as what is being said. Sorry, you need some hard evidence it's not the sun's radiance.

From these 2 posts, I think you are saying that the global temperature is getting warmer.
But when scientists conclude from data from the monitoring station that the earth's temperature is getting warmer, you dismiss their evidence that the earth is getting warmer. If you dismiss the data of the monitoring stations, from what information do you conclude that the earth's temperature is rising and why would you dismiss evidence that agrees with your opinion?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode