Posted on 03/07/2012 1:15:27 PM PST by spacejunkie2001
This was just sent to me by my daughter's 5th grade teacher. I have been going back and forth with her about global warming; obviously she's convinced it's real.
I need ammo from you all here (a bunch of smarty pants when it comes to this stuff:)) so I can go back to her with solid facts disputing this propaganda.
You'd have better luck juggling flaming chain saws while roller skating.
did you read the link you provided? it’s skepiticism of climate skeptics :|
perfect reply! LOL
you should see her though...more like...SLUG!
Here’s one about the NASA GISS data showing their “increases in temperature” are caused by alterations in the data, not real warming:http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/global-warming-is-caused-by-computers.html
Ask yourself why they chose the period they did as a “baseline”.
****************************************************
Too easy ,, up to the 1980’s scientists were convinced we were heading to a mini-ice-age ... I haven’t looked at the data (and won’t!) because it is inherently unreliable ,, too many problems normalizing the data with differing temperature measurement technology , changes in microclimates around weather stations and such... how do you compare data taken with a mercury thermometer in a hut surrounded by grass and trees to the same weather station with electronic data recording to the 4th decimal point that is now surrounded by asphalt parking and buildings disrupting the airflow and sunlight?
Thanks to everyone! I have replied with a couple of links provided as well as a REMINDER to her (because I told her before) to look into ‘Climategate’ as there is clear evidence they faked the information on warming.
The AGW, Anthropogenic Global Warming, proponents shot themselves in the foot and demonstrated their lack of science orientation when they advanced the “hockey stick” model and then stuck by their guns when the model fell flat on its face.
I have done stochastic modeling. One has to be extremely careful to calibrate models and make sure that all the important controlling variables are included in the model. For my first modeling effort I verified the technology I was using by constructing a model of an open system whose parameters could be calculated with formulas directly. Having this model come up reasonable results authenticated the computer language I was using with the runtime libraries, random number generators, and my event injectors. I ran a separate set of tests just to verify the random behavior of the random number generator.
After I verified the technology, I constructed my real world model and tuned it to produce the results of the working system. Then I modified the model to reflect changes I was proposing in the real system. The model results demonstrated that the modifications would have a positive effect. The modifications were made and we measured the new system. The resulting measurement was within 10% of my model results which was an 800% change from the original system.
Now consider the infamous “hockey stick”. It was built from two different types of data sets. The first pre-historical data set was based on tree rings in a very limited area of northern Asia. The second data set was based on different observations BECAUSE THE TREE RING EXTRAPOLATIONS DID NOT MATCH KNOWN HISTORICAL DATA FROM RECENT HISTORY. HELLO! They admitted the tree rings were inadequate for the known history, but they kept the tree ring data for periods where they could not be validated. That STINKS as a methodology.
Looking back, we can now see that the “hockey stick” that was predicted did not happen. It wasn’t even close. Actual results clearly demonstrated that their models weren’t worth spit. At that point they should have junked their models and started from scratch looking for the correct set of variables.
Instead, they dug in. Some actually defended the hockey stick. Others, discounted the shoddy science and insisted that even though they have no data which backs up their projection and there is plenty of data; e.g., satellite data, which throws aspersions on their assertion that CO2 has had a significant effect on warming, they stick to their guns. Thus they behave like religious zealots rather than scientists.
BTW: There has been global warming. If you visit glacier national park in Canada they will gladly show you how the glaciers have been receding. However, the warming started in the late 1800’s long before man had injected significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The fact is that during the 20th Century we had been coming out of a little ice age.
Even at that Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma documented several periods during the 20th Century when scientists declared that a new ice age was upon us due to global cooling. When I walked into my physics class in college in 1970 the prior instructor was wrapping up her science class. She had charts showing the coming ice age.
The key is that no matter which direction the climate moves. The alarmists claim that only massive government intervention into the economy can prevent the coming disaster. And forget about cost-benefit analysis. I haven’t seen one instance where a global alarmist can name any benefit from the supposed warming. According to them it’s all bad. As my boss once told me: “There’s always another side to every story. You are not being rational if you can’t name a single upside.” Thus, another indication that AGW is a religion rather than based on science.
[I do not plan to go to your cited web page. I refuse to provide them with the “hits” which may enrich them due to advertising.]
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
http://kutwrite.hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming-Fake-01
http://voices.yahoo.com/heating-over-nothing-some-facts-global-warming-204121.html
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
http://rightvoices.com/2009/11/27/human-caused-global-warming-is-a-hoax-and-fraud/
http://www.zimbio.com/Global+Warming+Hoax/articles/wByJIQho2O9/Fakegate+Blows+Up+Warmist+Faces
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110518073358AATma0O
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/07/28/nasa-exposed-global-warming-hoax/
Exactly. So then ask her what the correct “global” temperature is.
If it’s -130F at the poles and 270F at the equator distributed in a polar format that made the average per square mile was 70F throughout the planet, would that be just as good as 70F distributed constantly from Antarctica to the Sahara?
Is it a good idea to have seasons? Why? Is change good or bad? Which change? If we stop global warming, how do we know when to start it again?
If you don’t have a pretty good knowledge base on a particular subject, it’s probably not a good idea to get into the argument in the first place.
Let’s also not forget urban heating. Fifty years ago, the NOAA temperature censors were away from population centers, but as we have grown, those centers have surrounded these locations and have effected readings.
All of the above. But what in the he$$ are 5th grade teachers doing arguing global warming over email with parents?
How about spend that time TEACHING MATH OR SPELLING OR READING? Our society is a mess.
Simple. Ask her how she knows that water boils at 212 degrees F or freezes at 32 degrees F. (Hopefully she knows why—based on tests and data). Then ask her how she knows that global warming is caused by humans. There is no proven nexus between humans/huma activities and any increase in the earth’s temperature.
The teacher, alas, is probably a lost cause.
When the “cure” is higher taxes and more gov’t control over your lives, who could possibly question the legitimacy of the problem? /s
The warming shown in the rest of world is much greater on land and as people have already pointed out, that discrepancy is due in part to urban heating of land thermometers. Also the removal of rural thermometers from the record (leaving the urban ones in place).
The rest of the site is mostly garbage including the claim that global warming causes more tornadoes (it will likely cause less). And blaming forest fires on global warming when overzealous suppression is a much greater cause. In short, global warming is almost all good. The attempt to paint the weather fluctuations (e.g. the La Nina to neutral transition that caused the tornadoes ) as global warming is anti-scientific.
Where did the temp. readings for this chart come from? If they came from earth bound weather stations instead of a satilites, Andy Watts has data on mico-climate effects on driving up earth bound weather station temp. readings. For example, some were located in parking lots or next to large air conditioning units. People devolped around the weather stations over time.
If she says the temps. came from satilites, measuring air temps, that is better but still, how could she have air temp data before satilites were in the air as shown in this video?
I always ask what caused climate change (warming and cooling cycles) in history before man was driving suv’s?
Finally, a chart simply showing the temperature for this sort period of geological history, is not odd at all. The climate changes all the time; it has never been stagnant. The claim that the warming is caused by man made carbon emisions is not true. See http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Also, many of the predictions made by warmists have not turned out to be true because their climate computer models are faulty. http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/snows_of_kilimanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictions.html
Don’t forget about the climate gate scandal where lead scientists with the UN panel were exposed (through e-mail hacking of their University accounts) using their power through threats against Journals and researchers to not publish any science that disagree with their own global warming findings. Andy Watts has the best coverage of all these points: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
We also had the liberals doing the same thing only it was man made global freezing in the 60’s and 70’s. Why? How does it benefit leftists to get control over oil use and heavy taxation? Control over the central means of production - the basic requirement of a Marxist economic system. You control the global oil and you control the globe’s production and living and dying. That is why they are called watermelons - red on the inside playing green on the outside.
They claim we should use alternative energy and there is nothing to replace oil with at the moment. (See Obama’s failed stimulous billions in alternative energy “investments.” Wind and sun technology is not ready for prime time to keep the people alive and our economies going.) Electric cars are not ready for prime time either. See the Government Motors Chevy Volt, as an example.
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.