The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on March 02, 2008, 10:25:33 PM
-
the mayans say so, and so does the planetary alignment wing of the comet watching crowd. and the magnetic poles will flip, and dogs and cats will live together, and the seahawks will win a superbowl.
seriously, this is a good bit more interesting than I made it out to be. :-)
December 21, 2012 (http://www.december212012.com/)
-
Saw a re-run of a special on History or Discovery Channel tonight on it. Have to say a lot of it like the I Ching thing seemed to be like the Bible Code thing where you could set it up to come out any way you wanted to; the whole web-bot part of it was pretty interesting but also appeared to be quite a stretch to call it prophetic, it looked a lot more like a model with an increasing gyration in predictive outcome caused by internal feedback errors. Also kind of a reach on the Sybelline prophecy thing, given how the very word 'oracular' means important-sounding pronouncement that are so veiled in obtuseness as to be useless in application.
The Mayas may have been great astronomers but their ability to predict anything else that might have been of use to them, like protracted drought or the outcome of their internecine wars, seems to have been somewhere in the negative number range.
On the other hand, it will be intersting to see if there is any connection with the 'Pioneer anomaly' thing and this galactic alignment thing, I guess if so it would mean the anomaly would increase as the 2012 winter solstice approaches.
-
OH NO!!!!!
-
I am just giddy with anticipation at the thought of finally being able to stock my underground greenhouses with unarmed liberal serfs when it all drops in the pot.
Gonna sip me some mint julips on the porch with a shotgun on my lap and watch them rascals grow my turnups.
Every now and then I might smile and shout out a question about how President Barack is working out for them.
Ahh... Gonna be good times. ;)
-
In 2011 look for Art Bell to do radio spots for store able food. :lmao:
-
In 2011 look for Art Bell to do radio spots for store able food. :lmao:
did you hear last nights show? something about how some country is damming up water and its making the earth wobble right now? :popcorn:
-
In 2011 look for Art Bell to do radio spots for store able food. :lmao:
did you hear last nights show? something about how some country is damming up water and its making the earth wobble right now? :popcorn:
Is that what I've been feeling? I thought my knees were acting up again.
-
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d25/bondai/OhNoes.gif)
-
The real fun begins after 2012 when all the doomsday believers have to come up with excuses to explain why doomsday did not come.
-
In 2011 look for Art Bell to do radio spots for store able food. :lmao:
did you hear last nights show? something about how some country is damming up water and its making the earth wobble right now? :popcorn:
I havent caught Coast to Coast in years maybe I should start tuning in again :rotf:
-
The real fun begins after 2012 when all the doomsday believers have to come up with excuses to explain why doomsday did not come.
Won't we all be dead by then from Global warming Climate change? :whatever:
-
Won't we all be dead by then from Global warming Climate change? :whatever:
Don't ask me. I haven't argued that global warming will bring about doomsday.
-
In 2011 look for Art Bell to do radio spots for store able food. :lmao:
did you hear last nights show? something about how some country is damming up water and its making the earth wobble right now? :popcorn:
Is that what I've been feeling? I thought my knees were acting up again.
i should find the link ... its really enlightening, but as WE has already stated, the earth is over in 2012, so no worries.
although, i think the mayan dude who was writing the calendar way back when, just got tired of writing and wandered off and got eaten by a wooly mamoth or something..
-
In 2011 look for Art Bell to do radio spots for store able food. :lmao:
did you hear last nights show? something about how some country is damming up water and its making the earth wobble right now? :popcorn:
I havent caught Coast to Coast in years maybe I should start tuning in again :rotf:
my husband says, 'its like reading the Bat Boy papers every evening...' i think it just makes him feel nice and normal. :-)
-
The real fun begins after 2012 when all the doomsday believers have to come up with excuses to explain why doomsday did not come.
There have been doomsday cults from time immemorial. The latest is the Global Warming(TM) religion. History shows that usually when the end of the world fails to happen, some of the followers drop off but the cult leader usually recalculates and comes up with a reason why they screwed up the end of the world calculation the first time and then it fails to happen again.
Usually thereafter, the cult continues in a diminished manner until the death of the cult leader.
Like every year that Global Warming(TM) fails to manifest or is only the result of an el Nino, we hear how cold weather is the result of Global Warming(TM) or "weather is different from climate" or any other manner of excuse. When there is a particularly cold winter, the GW(TM) believers fall silent until the first 80 degree day in July and they start up their preaching again.
The funny part with the Global Warming(TM) cult is when someone takes a boat for a cruise through the Arctic Circle because they believe Global Warming(TM) has opened up a passage and then they get stuck in the ice! Or eco-wacktovists plan a hike in the Arctic Circle believing all the made-up hype in the press about dying polar bears and have to cancel because it's too cold.
Yet, they continue to believe until the only excuse they can come up with is "The Oil Companies did it!"
I don't expect much more from the 2012 believers. I survived the 1982 Jupiter Effect. The 1999 Nostradamus prophecy. And the 5/5/05 earth tipping disaster. Not to mention Global Warming(TM) and numerous near-misses with space planetoids. Living such a charmed life, I do believe as long as I am alive on 12/21/2012 the world will continue. I am very lucky that way.
I can survive end of the worlds better than Barack Insane Obama can survive his middle name.
Oh, I almost forgot, I also survived the launch of Cassini! Truly I am a great benefit for the earth and all those who dwell here. And I don't even get paid any extra. Oh and the 8/8/88 falling into the sea of California. I am bullet-proof when it comes to end of the worlds!
-
The real fun begins after 2012 when all the doomsday believers have to come up with excuses to explain why doomsday did not come.
I remember my next door neighbor, a Jehova's Witness, getting married in the 70's. She was giving her wedding gown and similar assorted stuff to charity. When my Mom asked "don't you want to save that for your daughter someday?" the neighbor replied "the world will end in 1984 so it doesn't matter."
I have no idea what she said in 1985, much less what she told her daughter (which I know she had).
-
There have been doomsday cults from time immemorial. The latest is the Global Warming(TM) religion. History shows that usually when the end of the world fails to happen, some of the followers drop off but the cult leader usually recalculates and comes up with a reason why they screwed up the end of the world calculation the first time and then it fails to happen again.
You have been misinformed. Scientists have not argued that Global Warming will bring about doomsday.
-
The real fun begins after 2012 when all the doomsday believers have to come up with excuses to explain why doomsday did not come.
I remember my next door neighbor, a Jehova's Witness, getting married in the 70's. She was giving her wedding gown and similar assorted stuff to charity. When my Mom asked "don't you want to save that for your daughter someday?" the neighbor replied "the world will end in 1984 so it doesn't matter."
I have no idea what she said in 1985, much less what she told her daughter (which I know she had).
how about, "I want my f*cking wedding dress back"? :-)
-
There have been doomsday cults from time immemorial. The latest is the Global Warming(TM) religion. History shows that usually when the end of the world fails to happen, some of the followers drop off but the cult leader usually recalculates and comes up with a reason why they screwed up the end of the world calculation the first time and then it fails to happen again.
You have been misinformed. Scientists have not argued that Global Warming will bring about doomsday.
Yes, everyone is misinformed about everything, except you.
-
There have been doomsday cults from time immemorial. The latest is the Global Warming(TM) religion. History shows that usually when the end of the world fails to happen, some of the followers drop off but the cult leader usually recalculates and comes up with a reason why they screwed up the end of the world calculation the first time and then it fails to happen again.
You have been misinformed. Scientists have not argued that Global Warming will bring about doomsday.
No, but they have argued that it would bring about Global Warming(TM). So, where the hell is it?
This is what the 2012 believers will do, some of them. They will say, "you are misinformed, we never said it would bring about doomsday, even if they have. And don't forget, divinity school dropout Algore Jr., has argued it would be catastrophic. Now he may not be a scientist per se, but he is a Global Warming(TM) cult leader. And he's the one the Media listen to. Unless your non-doomsday Global Warming(TM) believing scientists get out in front of the microphone and say it is no big deal, they are complicit in the cult. They provide divinity school dropout Algore Jr. with a basis for his cult.
Divinity school dropout, or was it failure, I forget not, Algore Jr. also argued in his Magnum Opus Earth in the Balance that the media should lie about the severity of Global Warming(TM) because it is such a serious cult. He said the other side of the argument shouldn't be presented.
That's what cult leaders do. They isolate and attempt to control what information their cult members get.
-
No, but they have argued that it would bring about Global Warming(TM). So, where the hell is it?
Global warming is here...
(http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/hockey_stick.gif)
Global warming does not mean all warm weather all the time.
-
No, but they have argued that it would bring about Global Warming(TM). So, where the hell is it?
Global warming is here...
(http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/hockey_stick.gif)
Global warming does not mean all warm weather all the time.
OMG! A chart! How could one ever argue against the power of a chart! :whatever:
Well, the mayans have their calendar that proves the end of the world too.
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a46/maplebob/mayan.jpg)
There you go. Proof that the World of the Fourth Sun will end on 12/21/2012.
-
No, but they have argued that it would bring about Global Warming(TM). So, where the hell is it?
Global warming is here...
(http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/hockey_stick.gif)
Global warming does not mean all warm weather all the time.
I was listening to a scientist on Glenn Beck today stating that they have no computer models which give them accurate weather conditions *right now* nor do they have computer models or ways to know what weather will be like 50 years from now. He said the past 9 years had been unbelievably stable, weather wise, as compared to decades before.
To that end, try this little experiment. Find your local weather page and check it every few hours. Watch how it changes. Our local news station has already changed the icons on their weather page over four times this morning alone. I am watching it more today cause my husband is flying out at noon, so I'm curious. Over the weekend they were forecasting sun for today and tommorow. Now its raining (outside and on their website) ...
Our climate is constantly changing and for either side to say they have the specifics down right now is just absurd. I agree that nobody should be trashing the planet but as of 2008, we put very clean gas in our cars, use less coal as a country and are forced to recycle pretty much everywhere. Americans are doing their part with forced regulations in every industry. But you might want to check in on China and Mexico and see how many regulations they are breaking every day. It might actually be a better use of everyone's time.
-
I was listening to a scientist on Glenn Beck today...
Listening the Glenn Beck show was your first mistake. :-)
...stating that they have no computer models which give them accurate weather conditions *right now* nor do they have computer models or ways to know what weather will be like 50 years from now. He said the past 9 years had been unbelievably stable, weather wise, as compared to decades before.
To that end, try this little experiment. Find your local weather page and check it every few hours. Watch how it changes. Our local news station has already changed the icons on their weather page over four times this morning alone. I am watching it more today cause my husband is flying out at noon, so I'm curious. Over the weekend they were forecasting sun for today and tommorow. Now its raining (outside and on their website) ...
Your second mistake is assuming that climate and weather are the same thing. As I have pointed out many times, weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is much more chaotic than climate and as such is much more difficult to predict than climate.
-
I was listening to a scientist on Glenn Beck today...
Listening the Glenn Beck show was your first mistake. :-)
...stating that they have no computer models which give them accurate weather conditions *right now* nor do they have computer models or ways to know what weather will be like 50 years from now. He said the past 9 years had been unbelievably stable, weather wise, as compared to decades before.
To that end, try this little experiment. Find your local weather page and check it every few hours. Watch how it changes. Our local news station has already changed the icons on their weather page over four times this morning alone. I am watching it more today cause my husband is flying out at noon, so I'm curious. Over the weekend they were forecasting sun for today and tommorow. Now its raining (outside and on their website) ...
Your second mistake is assuming that climate and weather are the same thing. As I have pointed out many times, weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is much more chaotic than climate and as such is much more difficult to predict than climate.
Climate is especially easy to predict if you use cooked numbers and make predictions out past where you will be alive to see them come true.
The Mayan at least got right the alignment of the earth-sun-galactic center. And they didn't have to rely on subertfuge and cooked data.
The Mayan were in every way superior to the modern day Global Warming(TM) alarmists.
-
the mayans say so, and so does the planetary alignment wing of the comet watching crowd. and the magnetic poles will flip, and dogs and cats will live together, and the seahawks will win a superbowl.
seriously, this is a good bit more interesting than I made it out to be. :-)
December 21, 2012 (http://www.december212012.com/)
Too late, the end times are already upon us.
(http://www.mountalexander.vic.gov.au/Page/Images/135cat-dog.jpg)
-
The real fun begins after 2012 when all the doomsday believers have to come up with excuses to explain why doomsday did not come.
I remember my next door neighbor, a Jehova's Witness, getting married in the 70's. She was giving her wedding gown and similar assorted stuff to charity. When my Mom asked "don't you want to save that for your daughter someday?" the neighbor replied "the world will end in 1984 so it doesn't matter."
I have no idea what she said in 1985, much less what she told her daughter (which I know she had).
how about, "I want my f*cking wedding dress back"? :-)
LOL!!
-
Your second mistake is assuming that climate and weather are the same thing. As I have pointed out many times, weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is much more chaotic than climate and as such is much more difficult to predict than climate.
"Climate" study is, what, 25 years old? -- just 7 or 8 years older than you. And it has yet to make any useful predictions -- note I said "useful." The climate models don't backtrack well.
If and when it matures as anything beyond a self-fulfilling source of funds and boondoggles, get back to us.
Oh, and would you like to tell me what your climatologists do about a source of 2,000 TONS of pollutants generated every day? That is more than a large city. Wanna guess wwhere it comes from?
-
"Climate" study is, what, 25 years old? -- just 7 or 8 years older than you. And it has yet to make any useful predictions -- note I said "useful." The climate models don't backtrack well.
What are you talking about? If you look at the graph I posted, you can see that climate models backtrack really well and have so far held up year after year.
-
"Climate" study is, what, 25 years old? -- just 7 or 8 years older than you. And it has yet to make any useful predictions -- note I said "useful." The climate models don't backtrack well.
What are you talking about? If you look at the graph I posted, you can see that climate models backtrack really well and have so far held up year after year.
A graph is only as good as the cooked data used to create it.
-
Since the earth is clearly not warming, and since it has already been necessary for the weather propagandist to change the label from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", could "Igloo Gases" be far behind?
-
Since the earth is clearly not warming, and since it has already been necessary for the weather propagandist to change the label from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", could "Igloo Gases" be far behind?
Prior to Global Warming(TM) it was called Runaway Greenhouse Effect but they felt it wasn't scary enough.
I think it should be renamed to the Terrify You Into Giving Up Your Tax Money In Large Quantities Effect.
-
Since the earth is clearly not warming, and since it has already been necessary for the weather propagandist to change the label from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", could "Igloo Gases" be far behind?
LOL! Even the scientists who dispute the idea that mankind is the primary cause of global warming acknowledge that the climate is getting warmer.
-
A graph is only as good as the cooked data used to create it.
You're right. It's a conspiracy! Everybody run around in circles.
-
Since the earth is clearly not warming, and since it has already been necessary for the weather propagandist to change the label from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", could "Igloo Gases" be far behind?
Prior to Global Warming(TM) it was called Runaway Greenhouse Effect but they felt it wasn't scary enough.
I think it should be renamed to the Terrify You Into Giving Up Your Tax Money In Large Quantities Effect.
How about the Lie And Cajole And Badger And Fool As Many People As Possible In Order To Make The United States Surrender Its Sovereignty So We Can Make It A Second Class Country So Socialism Will Look Better And The Citizens Of The USA Will Share The Misery We Want To Create Effect
-
Since the earth is clearly not warming, and since it has already been necessary for the weather propagandist to change the label from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", could "Igloo Gases" be far behind?
Prior to Global Warming(TM) it was called Runaway Greenhouse Effect but they felt it wasn't scary enough.
I think it should be renamed to the Terrify You Into Giving Up Your Tax Money In Large Quantities Effect.
How about the Lie And Cajole And Badger And Fool As Many People As Possible In Order To Make The United States Surrender Its Sovereignty So We Can Make It A Second Class Country So Socialism Will Look Better And The Citizens Of The USA Will Share The Misery We Want To Create Effect
Even more accurate.
-
A graph is only as good as the cooked data used to create it.
You're right. It's a conspiracy! Everybody run around in circles.
Then why don't you go into detail and tell us about the data that went into creating that graph.
-
It's a conspiracy!
Fixed.
-
A graph is only as good as the cooked data used to create it.
You're right. It's a conspiracy! Everybody run around in circles.
Then why don't you go into detail and tell us about the data that went into creating that graph.
First, draw your lines, then plot your points.
-
Then why don't you go into detail and tell us about the data that went into creating that graph.
About climate reconstruction...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/068.htm
-
Then why don't you go into detail and tell us about the data that went into creating that graph.
About climate reconstruction...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/068.htm
No, I want you to explain it in your own words. Tell me what the chart means.
-
Do you know why every thinking intelligent person knows the "Global Warming" schlock is an anti-American, anti-humanity (bullshit) ploy? Because LIBERALS WANT YOU AND I TO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT. Liberals are NEVER honest about anything and the LAST item on their agenda is saving the world.
-
I was listening to a scientist on Glenn Beck today...
Listening the Glenn Beck show was your first mistake. :-)
...stating that they have no computer models which give them accurate weather conditions *right now* nor do they have computer models or ways to know what weather will be like 50 years from now. He said the past 9 years had been unbelievably stable, weather wise, as compared to decades before.
To that end, try this little experiment. Find your local weather page and check it every few hours. Watch how it changes. Our local news station has already changed the icons on their weather page over four times this morning alone. I am watching it more today cause my husband is flying out at noon, so I'm curious. Over the weekend they were forecasting sun for today and tommorow. Now its raining (outside and on their website) ...
Your second mistake is assuming that climate and weather are the same thing. As I have pointed out many times, weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is much more chaotic than climate and as such is much more difficult to predict than climate.
first of all, who cares what talk show the scientist was on? he's correct in that NOBODY can predict or use computer models to predict climate OR weather issues day in day out, or years into the future.
-
It will be interesting to see where things are in 10 and 20 years. If the spike drops off, there are going to be a lot of sheepish looks. Well, the renewable energy/reduce foreign oil dependence part of it is a net plus either way, at least.
-
Then why don't you go into detail and tell us about the data that went into creating that graph.
About climate reconstruction...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/068.htm
how many millions of years does that graph go back? :popcorn:
-
December 21, 2012 is doomsday for all lagomorphs. There is a hidden code in the Bible that says all lagomorphs will face God's wrath.
-
December 21, 2012 is doomsday for all lagomorphs. There is a hidden code in the Bible that says all lagomorphs will face God's wrath.
Are you sure about that? I heard it was doomsday because the lagomorphs, or actually lagomorph skeletons, live in the Galactic Core and when the sun and earth align with GC, then that will create a bridge to our world and the Ancient Ones, eg, the Lagomorphs, will cross the bridge and invade our world.
Allegedly, there are 13 crystal lagomorph skulls hidden around the world and they will be brought together just prior to 12-21-2012 to give their final prophecy to mankind and that is: Humans are rabbit food. Or rabbit skeleton food.
In fact, the newest Indiana Jones movie is supposed to be a reference to this but in typical Hollywood fashion they changed to a human crystal skull so as not to panic us hoi polloi.
I don't actually tend to believe this prophesy because it seems pretty fear based to me and much like AGW, I have found almost everything that is fear based is either a lie or an illusion.
But I thought I'd pass this on for the entertainment value. But I'm sure we'll all be laughing lots as killer lagomorph skulls from Galactic Core munch on us.
Here's one of the Ancient Rabbit Skulls of Prophecy:
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a46/maplebob/aztec_crysal_rabbit_b.jpg)
-
I was listening to a scientist on Glenn Beck today...
Listening the Glenn Beck show was your first mistake. :-)
...stating that they have no computer models which give them accurate weather conditions *right now* nor do they have computer models or ways to know what weather will be like 50 years from now. He said the past 9 years had been unbelievably stable, weather wise, as compared to decades before.
To that end, try this little experiment. Find your local weather page and check it every few hours. Watch how it changes. Our local news station has already changed the icons on their weather page over four times this morning alone. I am watching it more today cause my husband is flying out at noon, so I'm curious. Over the weekend they were forecasting sun for today and tommorow. Now its raining (outside and on their website) ...
Your second mistake is assuming that climate and weather are the same thing. As I have pointed out many times, weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is much more chaotic than climate and as such is much more difficult to predict than climate.
first of all, who cares what talk show the scientist was on? he's correct in that NOBODY can predict or use computer models to predict climate OR weather issues day in day out, or years into the future.
I was kind of wondering about his comment. If climatology is so good at predicting the far off future, how come they weren't predicting 1998 as the hottest year on record in 1978 when all the liberal news media was trying to scare us with The New Ice Age?
I actually found a quote from the guy who came up with the Hockey Stick Graph saying the only thing harder to predict than the climate is politicians when asked if the US would eventually sign Kyoto.
-
People have been shouting from the rooftops the end of the world since YK1. Now that we have these eco-nuts everywhere predicting the end of the oceans, fish life, the ice caps and glaciers, etc... and they've been doing that since the early 1970's and they always say "10 years from now, blah, blah, blah" and nothing changes, yet dumbasses drink the Kool-Aid from the Doomsday NostraDUmbasses even though science and facts and history says different.
-
No, I want you to explain it in your own words. Tell me what the chart means.
The graph compares two temperature reconstructions spanning many centuries against instrument data from the past century. The two plots match up really well.
Let me know if you need anything else.
-
No, I want you to explain it in your own words. Tell me what the chart means.
The graph compares two temperature reconstructions spanning many centuries against instrument data from the past century. The two plots match up really well.
Let me know if you need anything else.
And what are the controversies surrounded the so-called Hockey stick?
-
I was kind of wondering about his comment. If climatology is so good at predicting the far off future, how come they weren't predicting 1998 as the hottest year on record in 1978 when all the liberal news media was trying to scare us with The New Ice Age?
That 1998 or any other year may have been the hottest on record is a more or less irrelevant statistic. The scientists studying global warming are trying to make predictions about temperature trends, not absolute temperatures.
-
And what are the controversies surrounded the so-called Hockey stick?
Am I being quizzed?
Stephen McIntyre found that some of the data used to create one of the hockey stick graphs was erroneous, but because the data represented the US surface temperature record and not the global average, the hockey stick was not significantly altered by a correction of the data.
-
In 2011 look for Art Bell to do radio spots for store able food. :lmao:
did you hear last nights show? something about how some country is damming up water and its making the earth wobble right now? :popcorn:
I havent caught Coast to Coast in years maybe I should start tuning in again :rotf:
my husband says, 'its like reading the Bat Boy papers every evening...' i think it just makes him feel nice and normal. :-)
LOL good analysis actually it is like DU but, on the radio.
-
Won't we all be dead by then from Global warming Climate change? :whatever:
Don't ask me. I haven't argued that global warming will bring about doomsday.
Then what will Global warming errr climate change bring us?
-
And what are the controversies surrounded the so-called Hockey stick?
Am I being quizzed?
Stephen McIntyre found that some of the data used to create one of the hockey stick graphs was erroneous, but because the data represented the US surface temperature record and not the global average, the hockey stick was not significantly altered by a correction of the data.
So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?
-
So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?
What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...
http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636
-
Then what will Global warming errr climate change bring us?
Mixed results. I suspect that some parts of the world will benefit from a warmer climate but other parts may be adversely affected by it. The main reason why we should be concerned about climate change is that we don't know exactly what consequences it will have. Mankind is basically heading into uncharted waters.
-
So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?
What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...
http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636
So, in other words some scientists say the hockey stick is dead while others claim it isn't so your graph is not actual proof of Global Warming(TM) put proof that people are adept at finding the conclusions they've decided they want.
-
So, in other words some scientists say the hockey stick is dead while others claim it isn't so your graph is not actual proof of Global Warming(TM) put proof that people are adept at finding the conclusions they've decided they want.
Only a few scientists are claiming that the hockey stick is broken and none of them have any published work to support that claim. As I have pointed out, all the various hockey stick graphs have been subjected to intense peer scrutiny and they have so far held up.
-
So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?
What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...
http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636
So, in other words some scientists say the hockey stick is dead while others claim it isn't so your graph is not actual proof of Global Warming(TM) put proof that people are adept at finding the conclusions they've decided they want.
Remember, the useless, debunked, laughed-at, ridiculous "hockey stick" was created by leaving out vital known information in an effort to manifest a lie to further the cause of destroying capitalism (the USA). Nothing more. Nothing less. Only an idiot would bring up the "hockey stick" in an otherwise intelligent conversation. Every intelligent person knows about its origin.
-
So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?
What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...
http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636
You know, the other thing, the graph you posted eariler looks nothing like the graph in that PDF you posted to prove the hockey stick isn't dead.
Don't you find that interesting?
The one you posted looks like a hockey stick. The one in the pdf looks like a bunch of random squiggles. If I could get the picture out of the pdf I would post a comparison. So they are saying if you take the hockey stick out of the graph, then the hockey stick isn't dead.
Interesting. Don't you find that interesting?
I wonder why you posted the one with the hoaxed data?
-
Nothing in Senator James Inhofe's (R - OK) speech about global warming yesterday is new to anyone who is actually interested in the science of climatology, as opposed to the sensationalist nonsense that passes for it in the modern media, or has dug deeper than the front page of the New York Times. But here, Inhofe has concisely and expertly rebutted the last decade of eco-ridiculousness - with the cites to back it up. I recommend bookmarking it for the next time some hippy demands to know why ratifying the Kyoto Agreement isn't a "family value." Here are some highlights:
On the Media's ability to learn from history:
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.
From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
On the graphs showing exponential temperature growth:
The “hockey stick†was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the “hockey stick.†http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697
On the definition of "Doom":
It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.
On computer models as "truth":
Earlier this year, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than “science fiction.†In fact, after years of hearing about the computer generated scary scenarios about the future of our planet, I now believe that the greatest climate threat we face may be coming from alarmist computer models.
On the veracity of Enviro-predictions:
The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict.
On the Kyoto "Solution":
The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. And keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the nations that ratified it, including 13 of the EU-15 nations that are not going to meet their emission reduction promises.
Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along: The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.
On environmentalists' concern for the world's empoverished people:
The Kyoto Protocol’s post 2012 agenda which mandates that the developing world be subjected to restrictions on greenhouse gases could have the potential to severely restrict development in regions of the world like Africa, Asia and South America -- where some of the Earth’s most energy-deprived people currently reside.
Expanding basic necessities like running water and electricity in the developing world are seen by many in the green movement as a threat to the planet’s health that must be avoided. Energy poverty equals a life of back-breaking poverty and premature death.
If we allow scientifically unfounded fears of global warming to influence policy makers to restrict future energy production and the creation of basic infrastructure in the developing world -- billions of people will continue to suffer.
On the real agenda:
French President Jacques Chirac provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, who in 2000 said Kyoto represents “the first component of an authentic global governance.â€
On Time Magazine's "Expertise":
“[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.â€
Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore’s movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.
Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.
On lies of omission:
On February 19th of this year, CBS News’s “60 Minutes†produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml
It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water.
“60 Minutes†failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.
On lies of omission (2):
SNIP -more......http://uwfedsoc.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html
Nothing is as satisfying as the truth.
-
You know, the other thing, the graph you posted eariler looks nothing like the graph in that PDF you posted to prove the hockey stick isn't dead.
Don't you find that interesting?
The one you posted looks like a hockey stick. The one in the pdf looks like a bunch of random squiggles. If I could get the picture out of the pdf I would post a comparison. So they are saying if you take the hockey stick out of the graph, then the hockey stick isn't dead.
Interesting. Don't you find that interesting?
The graph in the NAS report about its study of the hockey stick is a comparison of 10 temperature reconstructions including the Michael Mann reconstruction which was found to be based on some erroneous data.
I wonder why you posted the one with the hoaxed data?
Considering that corrections to data used in Michael Mann's temperature reconstruction did not even come close to significantly altering the reconstruction, what makes you think that Mann used erroneous data on purpose? If a scientist were to use erroneous data to alter the outcome of a climate reconstruction, he or she would use data which alters the reconstruction in a meaningful way. The erroneous data used in Mann's reconstruction did not alter the outcome of the reconstruction in a meaningful way.
-
Remember, the useless, debunked, laughed-at, ridiculous "hockey stick" was created by leaving out vital known information in an effort to manifest a lie to further the cause of destroying capitalism (the USA). Nothing more. Nothing less. Only an idiot would bring up the "hockey stick" in an otherwise intelligent conversation. Every intelligent person knows about its origin.
Bizzare statement.
-
You know, the other thing, the graph you posted eariler looks nothing like the graph in that PDF you posted to prove the hockey stick isn't dead.
Don't you find that interesting?
The one you posted looks like a hockey stick. The one in the pdf looks like a bunch of random squiggles. If I could get the picture out of the pdf I would post a comparison. So they are saying if you take the hockey stick out of the graph, then the hockey stick isn't dead.
Interesting. Don't you find that interesting?
The graph in the NAS report about its study of the hockey stick is a comparison of 10 temperature reconstructions including the Michael Mann reconstruction which was found to be based on some erroneous data.
I wonder why you posted the one with the hoaxed data?
Considering that the erroneous data used in Michael Mann's temperature reconstruction did not even come close to significantly altering the reconstruction, what makes you think that the erroneous data was used on purpose?
I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time. Ego. Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.
-
I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time. Ego. Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.
You don't need to remind me that you are a conspiracy theorist.
-
I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time. Ego. Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.
You don't need to remind me that you are a conspiracy theorist.
So scientists never hoax data? It happens all the time. It isn't a conspiracy theory. It is an actual known problem in the academic community. It has been known to be a problem for decades.
-
I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time. Ego. Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.
You don't need to remind me that you are a conspiracy theorist.
So scientists never hoax data? It happens all the time. It isn't a conspiracy theory. It is an actual known problem in the academic community. It has been known to be a problem for decades.
And it is almost always to further some liberal agenda. Imagine that. A liberal telling lies? Whoever heard of such a thing?
-
I was listening to a scientist on Glenn Beck today...
Listening the Glenn Beck show was your first mistake. :-)
...stating that they have no computer models which give them accurate weather conditions *right now* nor do they have computer models or ways to know what weather will be like 50 years from now. He said the past 9 years had been unbelievably stable, weather wise, as compared to decades before.
To that end, try this little experiment. Find your local weather page and check it every few hours. Watch how it changes. Our local news station has already changed the icons on their weather page over four times this morning alone. I am watching it more today cause my husband is flying out at noon, so I'm curious. Over the weekend they were forecasting sun for today and tommorow. Now its raining (outside and on their website) ...
Your second mistake is assuming that climate and weather are the same thing. As I have pointed out many times, weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is much more chaotic than climate and as such is much more difficult to predict than climate.
first of all, who cares what talk show the scientist was on? he's correct in that NOBODY can predict or use computer models to predict climate OR weather issues day in day out, or years into the future.
I was kind of wondering about his comment. If climatology is so good at predicting the far off future, how come they weren't predicting 1998 as the hottest year on record in 1978 when all the liberal news media was trying to scare us with The New Ice Age?
I actually found a quote from the guy who came up with the Hockey Stick Graph saying the only thing harder to predict than the climate is politicians when asked if the US would eventually sign Kyoto.
i do watch the weather sites a lot here.. its a fun little experiment to see how much it changes during a single afternoon. the first icon up is usually rain drops and clouds... occasionally they throw up a sun with a cloud (they are right either way on that one) and then if its snow, its a snowflake. i only watch it so much because my daughter wears a uniform to school and if she needs tights cause its cold, its my job to know it.
i would say they are wrong 9 times out of 10.
-
I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time. Ego. Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.
You don't need to remind me that you are a conspiracy theorist.
So scientists never hoax data? It happens all the time. It isn't a conspiracy theory. It is an actual known problem in the academic community. It has been known to be a problem for decades.
And it is almost always to further some liberal agenda. Imagine that. A liberal telling lies? Whoever heard of such a thing?
I could never believe that unless it appeared in a peer review journal /TNO mode
-
I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time. Ego. Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.
You don't need to remind me that you are a conspiracy theorist.
i'm not sure which page it was on, but in this thread I asked "how many millions of years does your graph go back?"
if your graph is just a few decades, or even a hundred years... that is no model of what the earth has gone thru, as far as temperature change.
care to answer that now?
-
oh and one more question for ya TNO ... would you be for the Weather Channel founder and his host of colleagues suing Al Gore?
I think at least 52 million people on our side would. :popcorn:
-
i'm not sure which page it was on, but in this thread I asked "how many millions of years does your graph go back?"
if your graph is just a few decades, or even a hundred years... that is no model of what the earth has gone thru, as far as temperature change.
care to answer that now?
We don't need a temperature record going back millions of years to make accurate predictions about climate.
-
oh and one more question for ya TNO ... would you be for the Weather Channel founder and his host of colleagues suing Al Gore?
I think at least 52 million people on our side would. :popcorn:
I think it is a wonderful idea! It could possibly bring all this hoax out into the light. I wish many many lawsuits would be filed. It would be great to see the perpetrators of this coordinated lie having to defend the indefensible in court. It could set liberalism back about 100 years.
-
So scientists never hoax data? It happens all the time. It isn't a conspiracy theory. It is an actual known problem in the academic community. It has been known to be a problem for decades.
You really don't know what you're talking about and I'm getting really sick of you and others maligning thousands of decent and hardworking Americans. Most scientists are decent and hardworking people who have the ability to make a lot of money in the private sector but choose to pursue science out of love for it.
Does fraud sometimes happen in science? Of course. Science, like any discipline, is vulnerable to fraud. Is fraud in science as widespread as you and others are making it out to be? Of course not.
-
i'm not sure which page it was on, but in this thread I asked "how many millions of years does your graph go back?"
if your graph is just a few decades, or even a hundred years... that is no model of what the earth has gone thru, as far as temperature change.
care to answer that now?
We don't need a temperature record going back millions of years to make accurate predictions about climate.
really? so a few hundred years is all the evidence you need to affirm that the world is headed for disaster?
you should watch the movie "Bobby" directed by Emilio Estevez. You'll love it. In it, he shows actual footage of Bobby Kennedy telling little elementary school kids in New York City that 'within ten years, we'll all be walking around with oxygen masks on cause we wont be able to breathe the air here"
so lets do the math.. he was killed in the late 60s and that would mean by the late 70s, we'd all be wearing masks?
not only did that NOT happen, our air quality in the US is actually better than it was during the 70s because of tighter regulations and cleaner gas that we burn in our cars.
-
oh and one more question for ya TNO ... would you be for the Weather Channel founder and his host of colleagues suing Al Gore?
I think at least 52 million people on our side would. :popcorn:
I think it is a wonderful idea! It could possibly bring all this hoax out into the light. I wish many many lawsuits would be filed. It would be great to see the perpetrators of this coordinated lie having to defend the indefensible in court. It could set liberalism back about 100 years.
I actually think its a great idea as well... the American public should line up to be plaintiffs in the case against Al.
-
really? so a few hundred years is all the evidence you need to affirm that the world is headed for disaster?
You should probably try reading what I'm actually writing.
-
really? so a few hundred years is all the evidence you need to affirm that the world is headed for disaster?
You should probably try reading what I'm actually writing.
you said, millions of years of data are not needed to know that the earth is warming.
tell ya what TNO, get back to us in a thousand years with a record of the earth's temperature. let us know if it got warmer or colder.
and we'll still be saying the same thing: over the course of the human lifespan, the earth does indeed change in climate and unless we made the first ice age and warming cycle, and all the millions of cycles after that, then most of us arent buying what youre trying to sell.
the American public is so over this hysteria. better try something else now.
-
oh and one more question for ya TNO ... would you be for the Weather Channel founder and his host of colleagues suing Al Gore?
I think at least 52 million people on our side would. :popcorn:
I think it is a wonderful idea! It could possibly bring all this hoax out into the light. I wish many many lawsuits would be filed. It would be great to see the perpetrators of this coordinated lie having to defend the indefensible in court. It could set liberalism back about 100 years.
I actually think its a great idea as well... the American public should line up to be plaintiffs in the case against Al.
Al Gore is already considered a big joke by normal people. It would be wonderful to have it confirmed in the media.
Liberals like Gore and his weather spooks try to live as if the liberals are still the only ones with a megaphone. There was a time when all normal people could do was talk among themselves on their little islands (homes, etc.). All public information came from and through liberals. That isn't the case anymore. Thank God and the internet and AM radio. Liberal lies no longer stand unchallenged.
-
So scientists never hoax data? It happens all the time. It isn't a conspiracy theory. It is an actual known problem in the academic community. It has been known to be a problem for decades.
You really don't know what you're talking about and I'm getting really sick of you and others maligning thousands of decent and hardworking Americans. Most scientists are decent and hardworking people who have the ability to make a lot of money in the private sector but choose to pursue science out of love for it.
Does fraud sometimes happen in science? Of course. Science, like any discipline, is vulnerable to fraud. Is fraud in science as widespread as you and others are making it out to be? Of course not.
i think the point you are missing here is that science, over our lifetimes, has been flat wrong on many, many theories they have introduced.
science is mostly about theory, not fact.
scientists in the middle ages thought the earth was flat... thought the sun revolved around us and we were the center of the universe.
i guess we have mostly proven them wrong now, havent we?
-
you said, millions of years of data are not needed to know that the earth is warming.
Correct. What I wrote is that we don't need millions of years of data to make accurate prediction about climate. What I did not write and what you suggested I wrote is that the world is headed for disaster.
-
oh and one more question for ya TNO ... would you be for the Weather Channel founder and his host of colleagues suing Al Gore?
I think at least 52 million people on our side would. :popcorn:
I think it is a wonderful idea! It could possibly bring all this hoax out into the light. I wish many many lawsuits would be filed. It would be great to see the perpetrators of this coordinated lie having to defend the indefensible in court. It could set liberalism back about 100 years.
I actually think its a great idea as well... the American public should line up to be plaintiffs in the case against Al.
Al Gore is already considered a big joke by normal people. It would be wonderful to have it confirmed in the media.
Liberals like Gore and his weather spooks try to live as if the liberals are still the only ones with a megaphone. There was a time when all normal people could do was talk among themselves on their little islands (homes, etc.). All public information came from and through liberals. That isn't the case anymore. Thank God and the internet and AM radio. Liberal lies no longer stand unchallenged.
I'm sure someone has already fast blasted this article to Rush, but in case they haven't I shall do so..
I think we could actually start a public movement against these guys with talk radio at the helm. :-)
-
you said, millions of years of data are not needed to know that the earth is warming.
Correct. What I wrote is that we don't need millions of years of data to make accurate prediction about climate. What I did not write and what you suggested I wrote is that the world is headed for disaster.
i will have to check my posts, but i dont believe i talked about 'disaster' ...
-
scientists in the middle ages thought the earth was flat... thought the sun revolved around us and we were the center of the universe.
i guess we have mostly proven them wrong now, havent we?
The belief that the Earth is flat was popular during a time long before the advent of the scientific method. Comparing modern science to superstitious beliefs of the past is absurd.
-
i will have to check my posts, but i dont believe i talked about 'disaster' ...
See post #77.
-
No, but they have argued that it would bring about Global Warming(TM). So, where the hell is it?
Global warming is here...
(http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/hockey_stick.gif)
Global warming does not mean all warm weather all the time.
Sooo....ummmm....errrrr well that sorta almost could be data for 1000 years....uhhhh what about the other 4 billion years of data, where's it at?? Seems to me 1000 years is a ticks fart in a hurricane.
-
well, for what it's worth, it takes a lot to destroy the world (http://qntm.org/destroy).
-
i'm not sure which page it was on, but in this thread I asked "how many millions of years does your graph go back?"
if your graph is just a few decades, or even a hundred years... that is no model of what the earth has gone thru, as far as temperature change.
care to answer that now?
We don't need a temperature record going back millions of years to make accurate predictions about climate.
Predictions = SWAG when taking an extremely brief, very narrow snapshot (100 years of real data) and extrapolating it out to cover the next billions of years.
-
really? so a few hundred years is all the evidence you need to affirm that the world is headed for disaster?
You should probably try reading what I'm actually writing.
Why? You never read what any of several dozen people write back.
-
well, for what it's worth, it takes a lot to destroy the world (http://qntm.org/destroy).
I think the reason Algore Jr. believes the world is going to end is because, well first I think he suffers from marijuana-based psychosis from all those years smoking weed on Daddy's couch, but the trigger was the end of his political career which was for him the end of his personal world, especially after he ruined any chance of running again by throwing a hissy fit, and he just projects that out onto the world along with his misanthropy for being rejected.
Hence, human beings, especially Americans, especially George W. Bush, are responsible for the coming end of the world.
-
well, for what it's worth, it takes a lot to destroy the world (http://qntm.org/destroy).
I think the reason Algore Jr. believes the world is going to end is because, well first I think he suffers from marijuana-based psychosis from all those years smoking weed on Daddy's couch, but the trigger was the end of his political career which was for him the end of his personal world, especially after he ruined any chance of running again by throwing a hissy fit, and he just projects that out onto the world along with his misanthropy for being rejected.
Hence, human beings, especially Americans, especially George W. Bush, are responsible for the coming end of the world.
did you even follow that link? :-)
-
well, for what it's worth, it takes a lot to destroy the world (http://qntm.org/destroy).
I think the reason Algore Jr. believes the world is going to end is because, well first I think he suffers from marijuana-based psychosis from all those years smoking weed on Daddy's couch, but the trigger was the end of his political career which was for him the end of his personal world, especially after he ruined any chance of running again by throwing a hissy fit, and he just projects that out onto the world along with his misanthropy for being rejected.
Hence, human beings, especially Americans, especially George W. Bush, are responsible for the coming end of the world.
did you even follow that link? :-)
I did. It reads eerily similar to my senior science thesis. I may sue.
-
Sooo....ummmm....errrrr well that sorta almost could be data for 1000 years....uhhhh what about the other 4 billion years of data, where's it at?? Seems to me 1000 years is a ticks fart in a hurricane.
Feel free to point out any scientific basis for the argument that a temperature record of 1000 years does not provide enough data for scientists to create climate reconstructions.
-
Sooo....ummmm....errrrr well that sorta almost could be data for 1000 years....uhhhh what about the other 4 billion years of data, where's it at?? Seems to me 1000 years is a ticks fart in a hurricane.
Feel free to point out any scientific basis for the argument that a temperature record of 1000 years does not provide enough data for scientists to create climate reconstructions.
Feel free to engage some common sense and see that looking through a peephole at the rump of an elephant 2 feet away doesn't show you what the whole thing looks like.
-
well, for what it's worth, it takes a lot to destroy the world (http://qntm.org/destroy).
I think the reason Algore Jr. believes the world is going to end is because, well first I think he suffers from marijuana-based psychosis from all those years smoking weed on Daddy's couch, but the trigger was the end of his political career which was for him the end of his personal world, especially after he ruined any chance of running again by throwing a hissy fit, and he just projects that out onto the world along with his misanthropy for being rejected.
Hence, human beings, especially Americans, especially George W. Bush, are responsible for the coming end of the world.
did you even follow that link? :-)
Yes, actually I started replying and I fat-fingered something and lost my train of thought which led to my closing thoughts on Algore. So, like there's a missing reel there. The Management apologizes for the inconvenience :-)
-
TNO,
I think you need to go get some friends or something.. your Global Warming Because of Humanity escapades are just falling short here.
Unless you care to tell the class, what caused it to warm up after the first ice age? :popcorn:
-
Feel free to engage some common sense and see that looking through a peephole at the rump of an elephant 2 feet away doesn't show you what the whole thing looks like.
So far, climate models are drawing a pretty decent picture of the elephant...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
-
Feel free to engage some common sense and see that looking through a peephole at the rump of an elephant 2 feet away doesn't show you what the whole thing looks like.
So far, climate models are drawing a pretty decent picture of the elephant...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
What part of Models based on bunk, made up data does not a climate crisis make doesn't sink in? Theory, dreams and desires can NOT predict something you can not know. You're taking a glimpse of gray & a wrinkle and doing a Chicken Little
-
What part of Models based on bunk, made up data does not a climate crisis make doesn't sink in?
The part where you make present a solid case to explain why the models are bunk.
-
Feel free to engage some common sense and see that looking through a peephole at the rump of an elephant 2 feet away doesn't show you what the whole thing looks like.
So far, climate models are drawing a pretty decent picture of the elephant...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
I kind of think you think this is so because...Well, we all tend to project what is in us out onto the outer world we inhabit so I might suggest you are full of hot air. Perhaps your affinity for hockey sticks is a suppressed or subliminal desire to spend some time on ice to cool that inner environment of yours.
Remember that the outer world is the world of effects.
Maybe you're afraid of the Global Warming(TM) Doomsday because you are afraid you will explode someday if you can't vent all that hot air. But it probably isn't true.
But it is our predominant thinking that determines what we are. And, by and large, our experiences in the world.
-
Duke?
How do you get that trademark thingie? That's cool.. :popcorn:
and TNO, we are still awaiting your analysis of what caused the First Global Warming after the First Ice Age.
-
and TNO, we are still awaiting your analysis of what caused the First Global Warming after the First Ice Age.
I don't have an analysis of what caused the first Ice Age or what ended it. I'm not a scientist. Anyway, I know where you're going with this. You're trying to make the point that Earth has gone through natural cooling and warming cycles in the past because you think that fact rules out the possibility that mankind is partly or wholely responsible for the warming cycle going on now. You are wrong.
Scientists are well aware of the various natural processes which can cause global warming and have accounted for them in their research. So far, none of the natural processes which can cause global warming have been identified as the cause of the warming going on now. What the climate models show is that if mankind is taken out of the equation, the planet would be cooling slightly. Instead, the plant is warming.
-
If climate change is a threat, that would mean that science is able to predict weather patterns over decades, so, why is the weather forecast wrong as often as it is right?
-
and TNO, we are still awaiting your analysis of what caused the First Global Warming after the First Ice Age.
I don't have an analysis of what caused the first Ice Age or what ended it. I'm not a scientist. Anyway, I know where you're going with this. You're trying to make the point that Earth has gone through natural cooling and warming cycles in the past because you think that fact rules out the possibility that mankind is partly or wholely responsible for the warming cycle going on now. You are wrong.
Scientists are well aware of the various natural processes which can cause global warming and have accounted for them in their research. So far, none of the natural processes which can cause global warming have been identified as the cause of the warming going on now. What the climate models show is that if mankind is taken out of the equation, the planet would be cooling slightly. Instead, the plant is warming.
then might i suggest that all you people who believe you are the problem... go off yourself :-)
but seriously, how ridiculous is your argument. "for millions of years YES the earth warmed and cooled regardless of humans BUT NOT THIS TIME!!!!!!!"
:whatever:
-
So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?
What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...
http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636
Experts Criticize Hockey Stick
In the July 20 Congressional hearings, Dr. Edward Wegman of the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University reported his team's research found serious statistical flaws that undermine the main conclusion of the hockey stick study.
Wegman and his colleagues concluded that, based on the evidence cited and methodology used by the hockey stick researchers, the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."
Wegman and his team also concluded the close ties between scientists in the small paleoclimatology community prevented true peer review of the hockey stick and related analyses.
linky (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734)
Looks like the main argument in favor of mankind's influence on "global warming" is bogus. Not peer review properly. Huh. I'm shocked.
-
If climate change is a threat, that would mean that science is able to predict weather patterns over decades, so, why is the weather forecast wrong as often as it is right?
As I have stated numerous times now, weather is more difficult to predict than climate because weather is a much more chaotic system then climate. I can't tell you what the weather will be in 5 years, but I can tell you with certainty that we will be at the dirty end of Winter and close to entering Spring.
-
So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?
What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...
http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636
Experts Criticize Hockey Stick
In the July 20 Congressional hearings, Dr. Edward Wegman of the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University reported his team's research found serious statistical flaws that undermine the main conclusion of the hockey stick study.
Wegman and his colleagues concluded that, based on the evidence cited and methodology used by the hockey stick researchers, the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."
Wegman and his team also concluded the close ties between scientists in the small paleoclimatology community prevented true peer review of the hockey stick and related analyses.
linky (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734)
Looks like the main argument in favor of mankind's influence on "global warming" is bogus. Not peer review properly. Huh. I'm shocked.
First of all, Edward Wegman is a statistician with no experience in any field related to climatology.
Second, the Wegman Report has not undergone peer reivew.
Third, the hockey stick has been subjected to tremendous scrutiny in studies conducted by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences. Both the NRC and NAS determined that the hockey stick is correct despite any errors in the data used in it.
In addition to validating the hockey stick the NRC found no problems in the peer review process which Michael Mann's work was subjected o...
http://chronicle.com/live/2006/09/hockey_stick/
The Wegman Report is basically a reiteration of Stephen McIntyre's arguments and those arguments have been deunked by the NRC and NAS.
-
so answer me already.
how do your scientists and peer reviewed climatologists explain that for millions of years, the earth warmed and cooled NOT because of humanity ... but all of a sudden (since the 1970s!!!!!) now mankind is responsible?
-
how do your scientists and peer reviewed climatologists explain that for millions of years, the earth warmed and cooled NOT because of humanity ... but all of a sudden (since the 1970s!!!!!) now mankind is responsible?
Scientists believe that global warming started in the early 1900s, not the 1970s, and is the result of industrialization causing increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I don't answering questions about global warming, but all the information I'm telling you is available online. A good place to start learning about global warming... http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1
-
So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?
What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...
http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636
Experts Criticize Hockey Stick
In the July 20 Congressional hearings, Dr. Edward Wegman of the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University reported his team's research found serious statistical flaws that undermine the main conclusion of the hockey stick study.
Wegman and his colleagues concluded that, based on the evidence cited and methodology used by the hockey stick researchers, the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."
Wegman and his team also concluded the close ties between scientists in the small paleoclimatology community prevented true peer review of the hockey stick and related analyses.
linky (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734)
Looks like the main argument in favor of mankind's influence on "global warming" is bogus. Not peer review properly. Huh. I'm shocked.
First of all, Edward Wegman is a statistician with no experience in any field related to climatology.
Second, the Wegman Report has not undergone peer reivew.
Third, the hockey stick has been subjected to tremendous scrutiny in studies conducted by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences. Both the NRC and NAS determined that the hockey stick is correct despite any errors in the data used in it.
In addition to validating the hockey stick the NRC found no problems in the peer review process which Michael Mann's work was subjected o...
http://chronicle.com/live/2006/09/hockey_stick/
The Wegman Report is basically a reiteration of Stephen McIntyre's arguments and those arguments have been deunked by the NRC and NAS.
..."serious statistical flaws..." :whatever:
-
..."serious statistical flaws..." :whatever:
Followup to the ‘Hockeystick’ Hearings
Filed under: RC Forum Climate Science— group @ 10:53 AM
The House Energy and Commerce committee held two hearings on the "Hockey Stick" and associated "Wegman Report" in July. We commented on the first of the two hearings previously. The hearings, while ostensibly concerning the studies of Mann and coworkers, were actually most remarkable for the (near) unanimity of the participating scientists on critical key points, such as the importance of confronting the issue of climate change, and the apparent acceptance of those points by the majority of congresspersons present.
The committee subsequently provided followup opportunities to participants to clarify issues that were discussed at the hearings. Mike Mann (Penn State Professor and RealClimate blogger) participated in the second (July 27 2006) of the two hearings, "Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments". He has posted his responses to five follow-up questions, along with supporting documents. Among the more interesting of these documents are a letter and a series of email requests from emeritus Stanford Physics Professor David Ritson who has identified significant apparent problems with the calculations contained in the Wegman report, but curiously has been unable to obtain any clarification from Dr. Wegman or his co-authors in response to his inquiries. We hope that Dr. Wegman and his co-authors will soon display a willingness to practice the principle of 'openness' that they so recommend in their report….
Update: There is an interesting discussion of the Wegman and North reports by Gerald North (talking at TAMU) available through Andrew Dessler's site….
...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/followup-to-the-hockeystick-hearings/
-
how do your scientists and peer reviewed climatologists explain that for millions of years, the earth warmed and cooled NOT because of humanity ... but all of a sudden (since the 1970s!!!!!) now mankind is responsible?
Scientists believe that global warming started in the early 1900s, not the 1970s, and is the result of industrialization causing increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I don't answering questions about global warming, but all the information I'm telling you is available online. A good place to start learning about global warming... http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1
i agree that the earth cools and warms ... time will tell if we are truly warming, or actually just coming out of an Ice Age. But I dont believe 100 years worth of 'data' on ANY climate issue is enough to declare manmade global warming.
i also dont believe everything i read online...
-
i agree that the earth cools and warms ... time will tell if we are truly warming, or actually just coming out of an Ice Age. But I dont believe 100 years worth of 'data' on ANY climate issue is enough to declare manmade global warming.
We have much more than 100 years of data on climate.
i also dont believe everything i read online...
Okay... I haven't exactly sent you to any kook sites, have I?
-
TNO, what I do know to be true about all that data out there - is that there is less than 500 years of recorded climate history.
that is a tiny speck of information about how the earth works... so dont get too wrapped around this axle. in the 70s, when I was a teenager, the 'scientists' said we were headed into an Ice Age... those same scientists now believe we are not IN and Ice Age but at the tail end of one. maybe the warming is because of that? i certainly dont claim to know.
in another few hundred years, the scientists might be able to declare if we are *now* in a warming trend or not... but we cannot possibly know *right now* if the trend will continue or not.
as for your links? i rarely check people's links.. i just discuss my own opinions, and very rarely enter into discussions about things i have little knowledge of.
-
Where is the Medieval warming period and the "little ice age" represented on the Hockey Stick?
However, several independent studies called into question the hockey stick's conclusions. A number of climate experts noted that the Earth experienced both a widely recognized Medieval Warm Period from about A.D. 800 to 1400, as well as the Little Ice Age from 1600 to 1850. The hockey stick missed both of these significant climate trends. Other researchers found methodological flaws with the hockey stick, arguing some data sources were misused, several calculations were done incorrectly and some of the data were simply obsolete.
Because the hockey stick image has been regularly used to promote and justify proposed climate legislation, Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine the hockey stick controversy. Their report, released in early July, confirmed many of the criticisms of the hockey stick. Whereas the authors of the research that produced the hockey stick concluded "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium," the NAS found little confidence could be placed in those claims.
The NAS also found the original researchers used proxy data for past temperature reconstructions that were unreliable, the historic climate reconstruction failed important tests for verifiability and the methods used underestimated the uncertainty in the conclusions reached.
link (http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/when-warmings-hockey-stick-breaks)
We can play this until the next ice age. The point is that nobody knows.
-
TNO, what I do know to be true about all that data out there - is that there is less than 500 years of recorded climate history.
Climate reconstructions are not based solely on instrument data.