Global Warming Stop the Superstitious Nonsense

originally posted by: and14263
Very nice thread. Pleasure to read.

My question is, should we trust predictions made on data since 1880 or is the period of 127 years too short to produce valid data considering the length of time we've been having weather on our planet?

There's a hundred topics answering your question:

Links for 'Temp record is unreliable'

Hopefully this one answers your question:

On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record (Menne 2010)

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dfnj2015

And I am sick of the "OMG! It's 100. Therefore, it must be hotter than it ever has been before!" argument.

That's not the argument the scientists are making. Surely you can see that.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

And scientists are never wrong, nor do they ever have ulterior motives.

Can you tell me the last time the whole entire Science consensus backed with one hundred years of evidence was wrong about something. And even if they were wrong on 40% of ALL science, you should still probably at least take a listen... right?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Discotech

We're overpopulated, I don't think curbing our growth would be a bad thing personally. We're killing the planet, if not by CO2 then by cutting forests down and choking the ground underneath with concrete, pollution, etc.

Maybe the public policy is to do nothing but roll over and die. This science is not a discussion of public policy. The question science is answer is does the of burning fossil fuel cause the global temperature rising. And then the next question is how much does temperature have to rise that it becomes a quality of life issue or actually becomes an existential problem. Again, science is designed to eliminate bias and superstition.

a reply to: dfnj2015

By the way it's "climate change" now, which is reason enough to be suspicious of the attempts to make climate change a state ideology.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The government says global warming is real, we take their word for it.
The government says 911 was terrorists, we don't believe that one.

I accept on 9/11 the laws of physics were suspended by God for one day.

a reply to: dfnj2015 Climate change has to do with variations in the solar output- the sunspot cycle- North and south poles have greater sq kilometers of ice than any time in the last 30 years. Co2 was 1700 ppm 325 thousand years ago without human involvement unless the neanderthals were doing quite alot of BBQing. Just a scam to drain the wallet of the United States-income redistribution and control of the population. Solar activity is down we are headed to a cooling period.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: dfnj2015

By the way it's "climate change" now, which is reason enough to be suspicious of the attempts to make climate change a state ideology.

Scientists do not create public policy. They just publish research.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I will read it tonight... Wish you had warned me it was a PDF.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Scientists do not create public policy. They just publish research.

But they are funded by government and multi-national corporations.

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
a reply to: dfnj2015 Climate change has to do with variations in the solar output- the sunspot cycle- North and south poles have greater sq kilometers of ice than any time in the last 30 years. Co2 was 1700 ppm 325 thousand years ago without human involvement unless the neanderthals were doing quite alot of BBQing. Just a scam to drain the wallet of the United States-income redistribution and control of the population. Solar activity is down we are headed to a cooling period.

All these lame arguments have been addressed a million times. Here's a million and one:

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008.

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

Peer reviewed papers showing it's not the sun:

Links for 'It's the sun'

I've love to post links to all your lame arguments all day. But here's the complete list of all the peer reviewed papers countering all the common myths and arguments based on superstitions:

Global Warming Links, sorted by argument

It doesn't really matter because I know you guys who are superstitious based will always take your dogma over anything anyone else says. I get it. You think your opinion is fact. You think your opinion is God's given truth.

If it were not for science, we would still be in the dark ages.

Here's an interesting take on climate change by the guy who founded the "weather channel."

a reply to: dfnj2015

Want to address my point where I said animal agriculture does more to climate change than every other issue combined and why scientists aren't talking about it?

a reply to: Taggart

Pluto is a planet? The timeline of human migration into North America? Marijuana is dangerous? Eggs are good for you? Wait, no they're not. It's a choice. No, they're born that way. Repressed desires for your mother?

Science is wrong about s# all the time. Shall I continue? I'm here all day.

a reply to: schuyler

It's a farce because you say it's a farce.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Taggart

Pluto is a planet? The timeline of human migration into North America? Marijuana is dangerous? Eggs are good for you? Wait, no they're not. It's a choice. No, they're born that way. Repressed desires for your mother?

Science is wrong about s# all the time. Shall I continue? I'm here all day.

that was rhetorical. Once it becomes literal, it looses all it's "pazzaz".

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: dfnj2015

Want to address my point where I said animal agriculture does more to climate change than every other issue combined and why scientists aren't talking about it?

There is lots of science showing cow poop is a problem. Scientists do not define public policy needed to address the problem.

Science in general is just theories until a better understanding comes along with a better theory.

It's forever evolving and growing as we evolve and grow with it..

a reply to: schuyler

Here's the complete list of links addressing each argument you may have:

Global Warming Links, sorted by argument

It doesn't really matter because I know you guys who are superstitious based will always take your dogma over anything anyone else says. I get it. You think your opinion is fact. You think your opinion is God's given truth.

It's a farce because Jesus says it's a farce.

originally posted by: Taggart

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

And scientists are never wrong, nor do they ever have ulterior motives.

Can you tell me the last time the whole entire Science consensus backed with one hundred years of evidence was wrong about something. And even if they were wrong on 40% of ALL science, you should still probably at least take a listen... right?

Oh, I listen.

I read.

Have been since the 70's when we were cooling, then when we were warming, then when we were "changing".