This video deserves a thred of its own:
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
This video deserves a thred of its own:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170 [/quote]
Yes, quite right… a thread titled “Things incredibly stupid people say.”
This is the same panel of nuts, psuedo (non) scientists and fake climatologists (Tim Ball and Pat Micheals) who are always used as hapless skeptics. Most are funded by Big oil companies.
The actual scientist with a reputation appearing on this piece of fiction said this about his appearance:
A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’.
Suprising you weren’t able to see through the knuckle-dragging stupidity?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
This video deserves a thred of its own:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
Yes, quite right… a thread titled “Things incredibly stupid people say.”
This is the same panel of nuts, psuedo (non) scientists and fake climatologists (Tim Ball and Pat Micheals) who are always used as hapless skeptics. Most are funded by Big oil companies.
The actual scientist with a reputation appearing on this piece of fiction said this about his appearance:
A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’.
Suprising you weren’t able to see through the knuckle-dragging stupidity?[/quote]
So without watching the movie (issues like “they are all funded by oil companies” get debunked… so does other issues… 
) You make a totally false comment… 
Let the madness commense… What about thinking before you post the next time? What about watching the movie, considering the data…? What about thinking your own thoughts… for once?
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
This video deserves a thred of its own:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
Yes, quite right… a thread titled “Things incredibly stupid people say.”
This is the same panel of nuts, psuedo (non) scientists and fake climatologists (Tim Ball and Pat Micheals) who are always used as hapless skeptics. Most are funded by Big oil companies.
The actual scientist with a reputation appearing on this piece of fiction said this about his appearance:
A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’.
Suprising you weren’t able to see through the knuckle-dragging stupidity?
So without watching the movie (issues like “they are all funded by oil companies” get debunked… so does other issues… ) You make a totally false comment… Let the madness commense… What about thinking before you post the next time? What about watching the movie, considering the data…? What about thinking your own thoughts… for once?
[/quote]
Again, these guys are known liars. One of your experts was previously a skeptic of the dangers of second hand smoke (I’m not kidding…literally that’s how dumb these guys are.)
[quote]100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
This video deserves a thred of its own:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
Yes, quite right… a thread titled “Things incredibly stupid people say.”
This is the same panel of nuts, psuedo (non) scientists and fake climatologists (Tim Ball and Pat Micheals) who are always used as hapless skeptics. Most are funded by Big oil companies.
The actual scientist with a reputation appearing on this piece of fiction said this about his appearance:
A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’.
Suprising you weren’t able to see through the knuckle-dragging stupidity?
So without watching the movie (issues like “they are all funded by oil companies” get debunked… so does other issues… ) You make a totally false comment… Let the madness commense… What about thinking before you post the next time? What about watching the movie, considering the data…? What about thinking your own thoughts… for once?
Again, these guys are known liars. One of your experts was previously a skeptic of the dangers of second hand smoke (I’m not kidding…literally that’s how dumb these guys are.)
[/quote]
Statements and accusations… 
That you don’t document OR do anything to prove…
next idiot please.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
This video deserves a thred of its own:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
Yes, quite right… a thread titled “Things incredibly stupid people say.”
This is the same panel of nuts, psuedo (non) scientists and fake climatologists (Tim Ball and Pat Micheals) who are always used as hapless skeptics. Most are funded by Big oil companies.
The actual scientist with a reputation appearing on this piece of fiction said this about his appearance:
A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’.
Suprising you weren’t able to see through the knuckle-dragging stupidity?
So without watching the movie (issues like “they are all funded by oil companies” get debunked… so does other issues… ) You make a totally false comment… Let the madness commense… What about thinking before you post the next time? What about watching the movie, considering the data…? What about thinking your own thoughts… for once?
Again, these guys are known liars. One of your experts was previously a skeptic of the dangers of second hand smoke (I’m not kidding…literally that’s how dumb these guys are.)
Statements and accusations… That you don’t document OR do anything to prove…
next idiot please.
[/quote]
Jeebus you should be googling this crap not me.
Example Tim Ball.
Claims Doctor of Science. He’s not.
Professor of climatology. No such dept. at his university. Claims to not be paid by big oil. He is. Talks about the global cooling myth in the seventies. Scientific consensus in the seventies said nothing of impending global cooling. In short an idiot.
Do I really have to do the rest…I’ll be typing forever, wasn’t it enough that the only actual expert was swindled by the makers of the documentary…(and of course accepts global warming)
Yet again proving that people seek ‘evidence’ that ‘proves’ what they’ve already decided to believe in.
When they encounter ‘evidence’ contradictory to their already settled on beliefs, it’s either ignored or ridiculed.
Sadly, very few humans (maybe none) are immune to this phenomena.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
This video deserves a thred of its own:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
Yes, quite right… a thread titled “Things incredibly stupid people say.”
This is the same panel of nuts, psuedo (non) scientists and fake climatologists (Tim Ball and Pat Micheals) who are always used as hapless skeptics. Most are funded by Big oil companies.
The actual scientist with a reputation appearing on this piece of fiction said this about his appearance:
A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’.
Suprising you weren’t able to see through the knuckle-dragging stupidity?
So without watching the movie (issues like “they are all funded by oil companies” get debunked… so does other issues… ) You make a totally false comment… Let the madness commense… What about thinking before you post the next time? What about watching the movie, considering the data…? What about thinking your own thoughts… for once?
Again, these guys are known liars. One of your experts was previously a skeptic of the dangers of second hand smoke (I’m not kidding…literally that’s how dumb these guys are.)
Statements and accusations… That you don’t document OR do anything to prove…
next idiot please.
Jeebus you should be googling this crap not me.
Example Tim Ball.
Claims Doctor of Science. He’s not.
Professor of climatology. No such dept. at his university. Claims to not be paid by big oil. He is. Talks about the global cooling myth in the seventies. Scientific consensus in the seventies said nothing of impending global cooling. In short an idiot.
Do I really have to do the rest…I’ll be typing forever, wasn’t it enough that the only actual expert was swindled by the makers of the documentary…(and of course accepts global warming)[/quote]
I should be googling YOUR claims? That is not how it works little boy… you prove YOUR statements… And well, attacking one scientist’s credibility doesen’t hurt the movie, especially when you see the examples on how the UN reports get manipulated…
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
This video deserves a thred of its own:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
Yes, quite right… a thread titled “Things incredibly stupid people say.”
This is the same panel of nuts, psuedo (non) scientists and fake climatologists (Tim Ball and Pat Micheals) who are always used as hapless skeptics. Most are funded by Big oil companies.
The actual scientist with a reputation appearing on this piece of fiction said this about his appearance:
A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’.
Suprising you weren’t able to see through the knuckle-dragging stupidity?
So without watching the movie (issues like “they are all funded by oil companies” get debunked… so does other issues… ) You make a totally false comment… Let the madness commense… What about thinking before you post the next time? What about watching the movie, considering the data…? What about thinking your own thoughts… for once?
Again, these guys are known liars. One of your experts was previously a skeptic of the dangers of second hand smoke (I’m not kidding…literally that’s how dumb these guys are.)
Statements and accusations… That you don’t document OR do anything to prove…
next idiot please.
Jeebus you should be googling this crap not me.
Example Tim Ball.
Claims Doctor of Science. He’s not.
Professor of climatology. No such dept. at his university. Claims to not be paid by big oil. He is. Talks about the global cooling myth in the seventies. Scientific consensus in the seventies said nothing of impending global cooling. In short an idiot.
Do I really have to do the rest…I’ll be typing forever, wasn’t it enough that the only actual expert was swindled by the makers of the documentary…(and of course accepts global warming)
I should be googling YOUR claims? That is not how it works little boy… you prove YOUR statements… And well, attacking one scientist’s credibility doesen’t hurt the movie, especially when you see the examples on how the UN reports get manipulated…
[/quote]
Owned!
Here is one of those maniac, right-wing dissidents on global warming, working as editor at the right-wing rag…Counterpunch?
[i]Is Global Warming a Sin?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
In a couple of hundred years, historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then, as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet’s rapid downward slide.
Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church was a bank whose capital was secured by the infinite mercy of Christ, Mary and the Saints, and so the Pope could sell indulgences, like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in “carbon credits” is in formation. Those whose “carbon footprint” is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others, less virtuous than themselves.
The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world’s present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind’s sinful contribution. Devoid of any sustaining scientific basis, carbon trafficking is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed, just like the old indulgences, though at least the latter produced beautiful monuments. By the sixteenth century, long after the world had sailed safely through the end of the first millennium, Pope Leo X financed the reconstruction of St. Peter’s Basilica by offering a “plenary” indulgence, guaranteed to release a soul from purgatory.
Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.
And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That’s the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it’s at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai’i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn’t even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere’s CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.
I met Dr. Martin Hertzberg, the man who drew that graph and those conclusions, on a Nation cruise back in 2001. He remarked that while he shared many of the Nation’s editorial positions, he approved of my reservations on the issue of supposed human contributions to global warming, as outlined in columns I wrote at that time. Hertzberg was a meteorologist for three years in the U.S. Navy, an occupation which gave him a lifelong mistrust of climate modeling. Trained in chemistry and physics, a combustion research scientist for most of his career, he’s retired now in Copper Mountain, Colorado, still consulting from time to time.
Not so long ago, Hertzberg sent me some of his recent papers on the global warming hypothesis, a construct now accepted by many progressives as infallible as Papal dogma on matters of faith or doctrine. Among them was the graph described above so devastating to the hypothesis.
As Hertzberg readily acknowledges, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased about 21 per cent in the past century. The world has also been getting just a little bit warmer. The not very reliable data on the world’s average temperature (which omit most of the world’s oceans and remote regions, while over-representing urban areas) show about a 0.5Co increase in average temperature between 1880 and 1980, and it’s still rising, more sharply in the polar regions than elsewhere. But is CO2, at 380 parts per million in the atmosphere, playing a significant role in retaining the 94 per cent of solar radiation that’s absorbed in the atmosphere, as against water vapor, also a powerful heat absorber, whose content in humid tropical atmosphere, can be as high as 2 per cent, the equivalent of 20,000 ppm. As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, clouds, snow, ice cover and vapor “is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the earth and the sun Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane.” And water is exactly that component of the earth’s heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.
It’s a notorious inconvenience for the Greenhousers that data also show carbon dioxide concentrations from the Eocene period, 20 million years before Henry Ford trundled his first model T out of the shop, 300-400 per cent higher than current concentrations. The Greenhousers deal with other difficulties like the medieval warming period’s higher-than-today’s temperatures by straightforward chicanery, misrepresenting tree-ring data (themselves an unreliable guide) and claiming the warming was a local, insignificant European affair.
We’re warmer now, because today’s world is in the thaw following the last Ice Age. Ice ages correlate with changes in the solar heat we receive, all due to predictable changes in the earth’s elliptic orbit round the sun, and in the earth’s tilt. As Hertzberg explains, the cyclical heat effect of all of these variables was worked out in great detail between 1915 and 1940 by the Serbian physicist, Milutin Milankovitch, one of the giants of 20th-century astrophysics. In past postglacial cycles, as now, the earth’s orbit and tilt gives us more and longer summer days between the equinoxes.
Water covers 71 per cent of the surface of the planet. As compared to the atmosphere, there’s at least a hundred times more CO2 in the oceans, dissolved as carbonate. As the postglacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, just like fizz in soda water taken out of the fridge. “So the greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards,” Hertzberg concludes. “It is the warming of the earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse.” He has recently had vivid confirmation of that conclusion. Several new papers show that for the last three quarter million years CO2 changes always lag global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years.
It looks like Poseidon should go hunting for carbon credits. Trouble is, the human carbon footprint is of zero consequence amid these huge forces and volumes, and that’s not even to mention the role of the giant reactor beneath our feet: the earth’s increasingly hot molten core.[/i]
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04282007.html
“There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world’s present warming trend.”?
More on Cockburn, self-described left-wing “radical”:
This is certainly a surprise. I also like how he chastises “progressives” for following global warming theory with the same zeal as “Papal dogma”.
[sarcasm]No…Lefties would never be guilty of the mindless fundamentalism they accuse of conservatives…[/sarcasm]
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
I should be googling YOUR claims? That is not how it works little boy… you prove YOUR statements… And well, attacking one scientist’s credibility doesen’t hurt the movie, especially when you see the examples on how the UN reports get manipulated…
[/quote]
All of the scientists have credibility problems. It’s as if you posted a link saying the Easter Bunny doesn’t believe in global warming.
And it seems when you post something so incredibly stupid you should be checking out the info and those informing you…why do I have to do your homework, why do I have to disprove unicorns or anything else you make up…but alas on to another crackpot appearing in the film:
Roy(Kook)Spencer: says:“scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.”
qualifications: Famous for proving temperatures in the troposphere were actually cooling. Except for one problem. They were actually warming. For the hilarious details…
also author for Heartland Institute (recieved $561,500 from ExxonMobil)
“expert” at George C. Marshall Institute (recieved $630,000 from ExxonMobil)
Must I do each person in the film or just the most hilarious?
How but the info presented in the film. Some great graphs…err…what?“distorted,mislabeled,…wrong”?
oh dear!
"A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme’s credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.
The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists."
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
Oh gawd the stupid never ends…
But please come back despite the complete fakery of the film, the admitted distortions, using the distortions to attack reality, please come back and defend it, please come back and attack me for pointing out you were duped! And it only took a few crackpots to do it. By the way there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you…pm me for details.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I should be googling YOUR claims? That is not how it works little boy… you prove YOUR statements… And well, attacking one scientist’s credibility doesen’t hurt the movie, especially when you see the examples on how the UN reports get manipulated…
All of the scientists have credibility problems. It’s as if you posted a link saying the Easter Bunny doesn’t believe in global warming.
And it seems when you post something so incredibly stupid you should be checking out the info and those informing you…why do I have to do your homework, why do I have to disprove unicorns or anything else you make up…but alas on to another crackpot appearing in the film:
Roy(Kook)Spencer: says:“scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.”
qualifications: Famous for proving temperatures in the troposphere were actually cooling. Except for one problem. They were actually warming. For the hilarious details…
also author for Heartland Institute (recieved $561,500 from ExxonMobil)
“expert” at George C. Marshall Institute (recieved $630,000 from ExxonMobil)
Must I do each person in the film or just the most hilarious?
How but the info presented in the film. Some great graphs…err…what?“distorted,mislabeled,…wrong”?
oh dear!
"A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme’s credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.
The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists."
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
Oh gawd the stupid never ends…
But please come back despite the complete fakery of the film, the admitted distortions, using the distortions to attack reality, please come back and defend it, please come back and attack me for pointing out you were duped! And it only took a few crackpots to do it. By the way there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you…pm me for details.
[/quote]
Haha… so… by using other “sources” with an agenda, that make accusations and statements, without much backing up… you prove… what?
The video is right: there is no absolute scientific proof that man is causing global warning.
On the other hand, there is no scientific proof either that when you run a red light, you’ll be killed in a car crash.
I just wish that the people who have the balls to gamble with the future of mankind, have the balls to gamble with their own future.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I just wish that the people who have the balls to gamble with the future of mankind, have the balls to gamble with their own future.[/quote]
The epitome of the idiocy pipes up. How does one gamble with the future of mankind without gambling his own future at the exact same odds?
What are the odds of being killed running a red light? What are the odds of being killed by global warming? What does it cost to guarantee you won’t be killed running a red light? What does it cost to guarantee you won’t be killed by global warming?
I wish the people that had the balls to open their mouth or write a post about GW would just save us all the CO2.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
I just wish that the people who have the balls to gamble with the future of mankind, have the balls to gamble with their own future.
The epitome of the idiocy pipes up. How does one gamble with the future of mankind without gambling his own future at the exact same odds?[/quote]
Oh, that’s quite easy. The chances are any major effects of global warming will only kick in after a few decades. Some people just think they can sing it out.
Others think that perhaps it doesn’t affect the region they’re living it all that much, or that they can buy their way out of any problems. If a country is wealthy enough, it can simply buy food on the global market. That won’t please the local farmers much, but hey, they’re a minority.
Most people don’t think at all, and just want to continue to drive that SUV they bought last year.
[quote]What are the odds of being killed running a red light? What are the odds of being killed by global warming? What does it cost to guarantee you won’t be killed running a red light? What does it cost to guarantee you won’t be killed by global warming?
I wish the people that had the balls to open their mouth or write a post about GW would just save us all the CO2.[/quote]
I didn’t know you felt this way about saving CO2. Why not simply hold your breath untillyou keel over?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Oh, that’s quite easy. The chances are any major effects of global warming will only kick in after a few decades. Some people just think they can sing it out.[/quote]
This and the following don’t refute my point. Their perceptions don’t change the statistics. If they are likely to be a victim of GW, it doesn’t matter whether they believe it or not. They are risking the exact same loss that any other member of the population is.
1.) Wait, so by continuing to work and earn, one can overcome the perils of GW? So why do we want to dial back growth and tax industry?
2.) Crop growth is expected to increase (as CO2 has done over the last 100 yrs.) and the parts that are expected to see greater desertification and a loss of arable land are the ones that are only minor producers anyway.
Canada, and Russia, the two largest Western Nations, were phenomenally fertile during the Holocene Optimum when temperatures were warmer. I suppose, if you prefer starving Africans and frozen tundra, we could keep things just the way they are.
Most people think SUVs are the “problem”, when in actuality all cars everywhere account for about 20% of the “problem”.
I would expect no less shortsightedness from a GW-zealot. As soon as I pass out, I immediately start exhaling CO2 at a rate greater than before I passed out, making up for any deficit I might have generated.
However, it’s pretty much par for the course that you would expect a GW-skeptic to hold his breath to save the planet, but that you wouldn’t do so yourself.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Haha… so… by using other “sources” with an agenda, that make accusations and statements, without much backing up… you prove… what?
[/quote]
Uhh…they admit “fudging” the data. Did you read the included link? Have you looked any further yet into the hacks who appear in the movie? Have you looked into my claims regarding them…fact checked them in anyway?
Meanwhile you’ve proved your gullible and have done zero homework on any of the global warming issues…
The knuckleheads in the film discuss:
The Little Ice Age: I assume channel 4 happened upon this—but I’ll be damned scientists are already familiar with this
Medieval warming: Yep we know about this, consider it factored into the data
Imminent global cooling: This ol’ myth again—can you really compare the widespread consensus of today with a newsweek article and a book in the seventies? Jeebus. Just dumb.
Freaking Water Vapor! Good lord. A good debunking of this tall tale here:
Feel free to debunk anything I’ve posted—I’d love a good laugh
[quote]100meters wrote:
…
Medieval warming: Yep we know about this, consider it factored into the data
…[/quote]
Factored in? You mean fudged out. You are quick to accuse one side of fudging the data and then excuse the other side!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
Medieval warming: Yep we know about this, consider it factored into the data
…
Factored in? You mean fudged out. You are quick to accuse one side of fudging the data and then excuse the other side!
[/quote]
I missed the link in your post where you document evidence that globally (not regionally) temperatures were warmer or as warm as now… because NASA, NOAA, NAS, and IPCC really don’t think so.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
Medieval warming: Yep we know about this, consider it factored into the data
…
Factored in? You mean fudged out. You are quick to accuse one side of fudging the data and then excuse the other side!
I missed the link in your post where you document evidence that globally (not regionally) temperatures were warmer or as warm as now… because NASA, NOAA, NAS, and IPCC really don’t think so.
[/quote]
This makes perfect sense to you?
[i]There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence.
…
In summary, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late 20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years.[/i]
Because it smells like a serious load of bullshit to me.
Also, why does a regional record not count? If you can point to the polar regions and say that they are indicating a GW trend, shouldn’t the same be true for any other region of equal or greater size? Were they funded by Exxon Mobil? Or are you just excluding regions that don’t agree with your preconceived notions?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png
Additionally from your site;
These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter.
but…
The Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the largest observed response is at the 100,000 year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regards to the ice ages. Various feedbacks (from carbon dioxide, or from ice sheet dynamics) are invoked to explain this discrepancy.
[i]Since orbital variations are predictable, if one has a model that relates orbital variations to climate, it is possible to run such a model forward to “predict” future climate. Two caveats are necessary: firstly, that anthropogenic effects (global warming) are likely to exert a larger influence, at least over the short term; and secondly that since the mechanism by which orbital forcing affects climate is not well understood, there is no very good model relating climate to orbital forcing.
An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that “Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.”
More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[/i]
I guess wikipedia must be funded by Exxon, or maybe one of the 61 dissenting scientists is contributing and the billions of consenting scientists have never heard of wikipedia. I wonder if Imbrie and Imbrie know how their cooling prediction is being misrepresented? Are they even two of the 61?
The data and researchers generate their own controversy and inconsistency. Exxon Mobil doesn’t even have to pay to generate it.
BTW- The reason it’s like punching sand is because that’s exactly what’s happening. Most scientists dig to get to the bottom of issues. The UNFCCC chooses to beat up dissenters. And you can’t just beat up skepticism and dissenting data.