National Geographic - Chicken Little Syndrome

[The Night Owl]

I'm a Christian, but the way Hannity debates this issue can easily be challenged. His point is that if you believe in evolution, etc., that you believe something came from nothing.

The theory of evolution is not intended to determine the origin of life on Earth.

[Rebel]

The sun has been more or less ruled out as being the primary cause of global warming. Scientists have very accurate data from satellites which indicates that temperatures on Earth have been increasing for the past few decades despite the fact that solar activity has remained the same for the past few decades.

We've had ice ages and ice melting since the beginning of time, yet the automobile is only about 100 years old. ....and now we're to blame? No ****ing way I'm buying that. I don't understand why liberals bash certain Christians on the age of the Earth, but think they can draw some kind of doomsday event with research that's only a very minute fraction of 1% of the life of the Earth.

[The Night Owl]

You speak for "mankind"???   

Did mankind throw out the Theory of Relativity when flaws were found in it? Of course not.

[Wretched Excess]

True, if the Earth is warming, it's most likely due to a very active volcano season and, damn, one more thing.......oh yeah, that bigass ball of fire 93 million miles away.

The sun has been more or less ruled out as being the primary cause of global warming. Scientists have very accurate data from satellites which indicates that temperatures on Earth have been increasing for the past few decades despite the fact that solar activity has remained the same for the past few decades.

that simply isn't true.  first of all, solar activity hasn't remained the same for "the past few decades";  it fluctuates in 11 year cycles.   but at very best, you have a sample size that is too small to draw that sort of conclusion. 

[Chris_]

"We" who???   

Mankind.

You speak for "mankind"???   

(my favorite graphic)

[Splashdown]

I'm wondering what's causing the global warming on Mars, then:
****
A Gloomy Mars Warms Up
ScienceDaily (May 28, 2007) — For the past 30 years, NASA scientists have been using high-tech satellite equipment to study features on the face of Mars. It appears a slight change in the planet’s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise.

link


***

Probably Cheney playing what that damn VRWC climate machine, again.

[Chris_]

True, if the Earth is warming, it's most likely due to a very active volcano season and, damn, one more thing.......oh yeah, that bigass ball of fire 93 million miles away.

The sun has been more or less ruled out as being the primary cause of global warming. Scientists have very accurate data from satellites which indicates that temperatures on Earth have been increasing for the past few decades despite the fact that solar activity has remained the same for the past few decades.

that simply isn't true.  first of all, solar activity hasn't remained the same for "the past few decades";  it fluctuates in 11 year cycles.   but at very best, you have a sample size that is too small to draw that sort of conclusion. 

They started with the conclusion and search for "facts" which support it and ignore those that do not.   

[Rebel]

I'm wondering what's causing the global warming on Mars, then:
****
A Gloomy Mars Warms Up
ScienceDaily (May 28, 2007) — For the past 30 years, NASA scientists have been using high-tech satellite equipment to study features on the face of Mars. It appears a slight change in the planet’s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise.

link


***

Probably Cheney playing what that damn VRWC climate machine, again.

Aw hell, this guy:




Must have figured out how to use the f'n Rover.

[Splashdown]

Looks like he's used to manual transmissions.

 

[Chris_]

You speak for "mankind"???   

Did mankind throw out the Theory of Relativity when flaws were found in it? Of course not.

Yeah, some still believe the earth is flat too.   

[The Night Owl]

We've had ice ages and ice melting since the beginning of time, yet the automobile is only about 100 years old. ....and now we're to blame? No ******* way I'm buying that.

You are making a huge assumption. The fact that natural processes have driven cooling and warming cycles in the past does not mean that natural processes are driving climate change now.

I don't understand why liberals bash certain Christians on the age of the Earth, but think they can draw some kind of doomsday event with research that's only a very minute fraction of 1% of the life of the Earth.

Most of the science on global warming does not attempt to predict the consequences global warming will have on mankind.

[Rebel]

You are making a huge assumption. The fact that natural processes have driven cooling and warming cycles in the past does not mean that natural processes are driving climate change now.

Are you assuming the natural processes have stopped since we started becoming more civilized? 

[Chris_]

True, if the Earth is warming, it's most likely due to a very active volcano season and, damn, one more thing.......oh yeah, that bigass ball of fire 93 million miles away.

The sun has been more or less ruled out as being the primary cause of global warming. Scientists have very accurate data from satellites which indicates that temperatures on Earth have been increasing for the past few decades despite the fact that solar activity has remained the same for the past few decades.

that simply isn't true.  first of all, solar activity hasn't remained the same for "the past few decades";  it fluctuates in 11 year cycles.   but at very best, you have a sample size that is too small to draw that sort of conclusion. 

Dead on.  As I have said OVER AND OVER AND OVER, Climatology is an infant "science."  GW might meet most of the scientific definition of "theory" (except, perhaps, falsification), but it is a very tenuous one.  And there is a lot of money and power to be had for very little effort by embracing human-originated GW.  Those who make money based on the Politically Correct results should not be allowed to research same.

[Chris_]

You are making a huge assumption. The fact that natural processes have driven cooling and warming cycles in the past does not mean that natural processes are driving climate change now.

Are you assuming the natural processes have stopped since we started becoming more civilized? 

Well, we don't fart as much.

[Chris_]

We've had ice ages and ice melting since the beginning of time, yet the automobile is only about 100 years old. ....and now we're to blame? No ******* way I'm buying that.

You are making a huge assumption. The fact that natural processes have driven cooling and warming cycles in the past does not mean that natural processes are driving climate change now.

I don't understand why liberals bash certain Christians on the age of the Earth, but think they can draw some kind of doomsday event with research that's only a very minute fraction of 1% of the life of the Earth.

Most of the science on global warming does not attempt to predict the consequences global warming will have on mankind.

You always argue from the "prove a negative" perspective -- a standard liberal ploy.  Damn, read this and then get back to us WITHOUT every sentence being a logical fallacy, OK?  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[The Night Owl]

that simply isn't true.  first of all, solar activity hasn't remained the same for "the past few decades";  it fluctuates in 11 year cycles.   but at very best, you have a sample size that is too small to draw that sort of conclusion. 

Well, of course solar activity fluctuates constantly, but despite those fluctuations, solar activity has not increased in the past few decades...



http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

[The Night Owl]

You always argue from the "prove a negative" perspective -- a standard liberal ploy.  Damn, read this and then get back to us WITHOUT every sentence being a logical fallacy, OK?  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Dude... I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm simply telling you that most of the research done on global warming has been done with the intent of determining what is causing it. Sure, some have speculated that climate change might pose huge problems for humanity, but that speculation is apart from the science.

[Chris_]

You always argue from the "prove a negative" perspective -- a standard liberal ploy.  Damn, read this and then get back to us WITHOUT every sentence being a logical fallacy, OK?  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Dude... I'm not arguing a negative. I'm simply telling you that most of the research done on global warming has been done with the intent of determining what is causing it. Sure, some have speculated that climate change might pose huge problems for humanity, but that speculation is apart from the science.

That is where you are 100% wrong.  They STARTED from the premise that GW is the result of human activity and worked backwards to create a theory that fits using more guesswork than science.  That is how they get the money and the power. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

that simply isn't true.  first of all, solar activity hasn't remained the same for "the past few decades";  it fluctuates in 11 year cycles.   but at very best, you have a sample size that is too small to draw that sort of conclusion. 

Well, of course, solar activity fluctuates constantly, but despite those fluctuations, solar activity has not increased in the past few decades...



http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

Except your red line was drawn using the bullshit Hockeystick and its since revised temp data set.

Repeating lies doesn't make them any truer.

[The Night Owl]

That is where you are 100% wrong.  They STARTED from the premise that GW is the result of human activity and worked backwards to create a theory that fits using more guesswork than science.  That is how they get the money and the power. 

Feel free to point out any scientific study which starts with the premise that mankind is the cause of global warming.

[Chris_]

that simply isn't true.  first of all, solar activity hasn't remained the same for "the past few decades";  it fluctuates in 11 year cycles.   but at very best, you have a sample size that is too small to draw that sort of conclusion. 

Well, of course solar activity fluctuates constantly, but despite those fluctuations, solar activity has not increased in the past few decades...



http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

Meaningless.  The Earth is billions of years old and has been habitated by animals for millions.  A 20 year reading is a 0.00001% sampling -- statistically meaningless.

[The Night Owl]

Except your red line was drawn using the bullshit Hockeystick and its since revised temp data set.

Revisions to the temperature data set affected only US temperature data and the revision was extremely small. The hockey stick is still in play.

Of course, if you are the type of person who bases your opinion of scientific matters on work which has not been published in peer reviewed science journals, I can see why you might think that the hockey stick is broken.

[Chris_]

That is where you are 100% wrong.  They STARTED from the premise that GW is the result of human activity and worked backwards to create a theory that fits using more guesswork than science.  That is how they get the money and the power. 

Feel free to point out any scientific study which starts with the premise that mankind is the cause of global warming.

PARIS —  Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

Environmental campaigners urged the United States and other industrial nations to significantly cut their emissions of greenhouse gases in response to the long-awaited report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

LINKY DINK

 

Blame "mankind" and then demand laws to hand over control of our economies to moonbats.  

[The Night Owl]

Meaningless.  The Earth is billions of years old and has been habitated by animals for millions.  A 20 year reading is a 0.00001% sampling -- statistically meaningless.

Dendroclimatology provides pretty good data about solar irradiance in the time before accurate satellite readings.

[Chris_]

That is where you are 100% wrong.  They STARTED from the premise that GW is the result of human activity and worked backwards to create a theory that fits using more guesswork than science.  That is how they get the money and the power. 

Feel free to point out any scientific study which starts with the premise that mankind is the cause of global warming.

PARIS —  Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

Environmental campaigners urged the United States and other industrial nations to significantly cut their emissions of greenhouse gases in response to the long-awaited report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

LINKY DINK

 

Blame "mankind" and then demand laws to hand over control of our economies to moonbats.   

That is the plan -- and it is WORKING, thanks to libtards like TNO.