Posted on 12/29/2010 2:25:36 PM PST by Sub-Driver
“Peterson warned that you cannot determine whether climate change is occurring based on an individual weather event. Instead, scientists study climate trends over the course of thousands of years.”
There’s the real problem. Thousands of years are way too short to pick up on the real cycles that may affect climate. No one has even thought about our Sun’s path around the galactic center much less the Sun itself.
There’s a reason our ancestors worshiped the Sun god.
I meant to say I found the articles. I created the excerpts myself. In any case, it is amazing how so few people, thanks largely to leftwing-biased media and academia, know that the overwhelmingly most significant greenhouse gas is simple water vapor, accounting for something like 95% of the effect! Details at the links.
So when we had droughts during the dust bowl I assume that was due to global cooling.
But wasn’t pollution worse then?
Am I missing something?
I never understood why warming=bad weather.
The original GW theory states that the poles are warming at a faster rate than the equator. Ok, this means the differential in temperature between the poles and equator is reduced. So when cold fronts from the poles collide with warm fronts, the weather should gradually get milder.
So even if you do buy their CO2 garbage, the net effect should be the reverse of what they are saying. Its just so cavemanlike and unprovable (perfect for public school teachers to ‘learn’ and use to indoctrnate):
Man make CO2 (especially evil white man)
CO2 retain heat
More heat=bad weather
How? Why?
But it's science.
How else will we survive the guilt ?
Yup. Two of my great-granddaughters live in Florida, and they were delighted to see the sleet, snow, slush ... whatever it was that fell on Jax.
If Global warming, climate change-and now as 0 calls it "global climate disruption" had any validity, they wouldn't have to change the name every other day.
Same with Democrats, Libs, Progressives...
The whole bunch of them are phony phackers!
Their grants are dependent upon there being an AGW crisis. No crisis = no funding. These guys are too old to be considering new careers in used auto sales. They will NEVER admit they're wrong, just as Baghdad Bob never admitted he was talking bullshit. When Bob's position became untenable, he just went home.
Whereas if things are getting cooler, the Arctic will be getting colder, and the temperature difference will drive more violent winter storms. Which is what we're seeing.
The problem with their “scientific” method is there is no way to disprove what they say.
Anything and everything they will use to only prove their cause...ah er I mean theory.
It is when everything “proves” their theory is when you know it is fraudulent science.
You have to be able to disprove a theory in order to prove a theory.
On the other hand, "climate change" is an old term, not something new. I've found that many people don't seem to understand that "Global Warming" doesn't mean you have warming everywhere. Also, you can have climate change without global warming.
I once spent an evening tallying up technical publications using "Global Warming" and/or "Climate Change" in the title over the past 100 years. I had 8 pages and I hadn't even gotten through lead authors starting with the letter "B"...! Both terms go back many decades.
Translation: "One more falsified prediction from our boys is just a pixel in the overall climate narrative. Some are indicative of the further research we need to do; some simply reflect the unreasonableness of [skeptics]. As the funding continues to flow, the shifts we've taken are an example of the former," he meant, while further meaning that the called-on falsified predictions are "examples of the latter."
These people might as well be Keynesian economics - and this winter is their stagflation. Like Keynesians, they take refuge in unfalsifiability.
"The curve...shifts."
As I understand it, warming temperatures can cause cooling temperatures as the two temperatures move around in the atmosphere, but the warming/cooling cannot jump continents. Also, a warming continent does not mean the warming is caused by humans.
Global Warming: globaloney for the gullible
...but ignore the pesky parts, and then use a recent 30 year period to referrence any current messaged and fudged and cherry picked data used to feed their inadequate models, so they write their biased, twisted, and contorted "reports".
They say it is “Too Urgent... Too Dangerous! The only way to stop it is “Less Freedom.. More Regulations and Higher Taxes!” and nothing else is even worth arguing about ...
Color me a DENIER and I’d just as soon color their outline with a piece of Chalk.
TT
Global Warming is a grab bag of theories. Whatever happens, you can reach into the grab bag and pull out one of the many theories to “explain” it. Let’s say this is Global Warming Theory #43. Then, come the next weather event, you cite Global Warming Theory #18. Then, #22. Never mind that these various weather events that are consistent with one of the theories contradicts the others. On the other hand, the whole thing is consistent with natural variation. Yes, the planet has been on a warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age (and this has been a good thing). At the same time, there has been an upward trend of volcano and earthquake activity, and a more pronounced El Nino/La Nina cycle. Has human activity contributed to whatever is going on? Maybe. The important controversy is the assertion that there is a threshold beyond which the planet will commence continuous warming and that we humans are tipping the scale. But, what is pathetic about this controversy is that there is now nothing that could be done to prevent this scenario. So, if it true, it’s now inevitable. On the other hand, the assertion is a mere speculation based on fears of the dynamic progress of capitalist economies and there is no rational basis for believing in it. If anybody were really serious about science, they would listen to economists as to how to develop a market in greenhouse gases; but, no, it’s all about advancing socialism within the democratic countries of the world and about the rulers of the undemocratic countries of the world shaking us down. These goals are, by the way, contradictory, since socializing the economies of the democratic countries of the world will destroy the wealth that the rules of the undemocratic countries covet.
gotcha...I concur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.