Study Confirms Global Warming’s Existence

Man made global warming is simply a tool the government wants to use to assert more control. The fact is that the Earth's temperature is not, and has never been, static. It changes all the time, it's just that the changes occur at a very slow rate from a human perspective. When I was a kid, the big problem was global cooling. This is normal, folks, just enjoy it. We did not cause it, and we can't prevent it. We need to be focusing on problems we can fix.

During the 1970's nobel prize pinheads
worried that global cooling was leading
to a new ice age, advocated aerial dispersal
of shredded black plastic over the polar caps
to melt them back.
Lately the same nobel knuckleheads
now want aerosols reintroduced to
combat global warming.

@Grace, Mt Pinatubo blew more
sulphur dioxide, nitric oxide, carbon monoxide,
and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
in 72 hours as mankind did since the
advent of the industrial revolution.
Krakatoa dwarfed Pinatubo.

Our annual output is a gnat's fart
by comparison.
What's naive is to even link thought
with any of the ecopropagandaists.

This is human arrogance and hubris on display.

To my friends on the left:
We should welcome the critics of the science....that is in fact what science is all about!

To my friends on the right:
Remember the critics of cancer and smoking?

My opinion:
I have a feeling that is how this will turn out. Science will always trump junk science.... but right now let us enjoy the slow rise in temperature in the pot we are all in. We should all die of old age before we stew! Originally Posted by WTF

Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Quits Physics Group over Stand on Global Warming

In his resignation note, Giaever wrote: "In the APS, it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but [somehow] the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

"Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important."

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2141...ysicist-re.htm

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. . . .

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyso...f07_index.html

During the 1970's nobel prize pinheads
worried that global cooling was leading
to a new ice age, advocated aerial dispersal
of shredded black plastic over the polar caps
to melt them back.
Lately the same nobel knuckleheads
now want aerosols reintroduced to
combat global warming.

@Grace, Mt Pinatubo blew more
sulphur dioxide, nitric oxide, carbon monoxide,
and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
in 72 hours as mankind did since the
advent of the industrial revolution.
Krakatoa dwarfed Pinatubo.

Our annual output is a gnat's fart
by comparison.
What's naive is to even link thought
with any of the ecopropagandaists.

This is human arrogance and hubris on display. Originally Posted by anaximander

Wtf?

My error at grace; intended guilty p.

Wtf? Indeed. What is ignorant is to speak
of things you know little or nothing about
and then proceed to act like you're
the thoughtful one...thoughtless.

What do you know about ozone
other than the ecocrap?
That cfc compounds break it down?
Yeah sunlight destroys both cfc
and ozone. Unfortunately for the cfc
compounds sunlight also creates ozone.
CFC's break down faster without adequate
UV shielding- the ozone.

Stratospheric ozone is created by photoreaction
of strong sunlight on oxygen molecules.
Where on our globe is the sunlight weakest?
say it with me....THE POLES.
And where are these ozone "holes" exactly?
THE POLES

And you draw no independent observation?
You know enough to be conned.
This is why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I could go on but I work best on specifics.
Bring it.

So you think using poetic writing and throwing out High School grade science quantifies you as the anti-expert?

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/dataset.php

Pray do, oh great Einstein of Eccie, amaze us with your years of research and data to back up your pompous diatribe. If you want to use pictures or display your Nobel price to back up it, please entertain us.

My error at grace; intended guilty p.

Wtf? Indeed. What is ignorant is to speak
of things you know little or nothing about
and then proceed to act like you're
the thoughtful one...thoughtless.

What do you know about ozone
other than the ecocrap?
That cfc compounds break it down?
Yeah sunlight destroys both cfc
and ozone. Unfortunately for the cfc
compounds sunlight also creates ozone.
CFC's break down faster without adequate
UV shielding- the ozone.

Stratospheric ozone is created by photoreaction
of strong sunlight on oxygen molecules.
Where on our globe is the sunlight weakest?
say it with me....THE POLES.
And where are these ozone "holes" exactly?
THE POLES

And you draw no independent observation?
You know enough to be conned.
This is why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I could go on but I work best on specifics.
Bring it. Originally Posted by anaximander

He sites Berkeley. LOL! What makes you think that global warming, if any, is man made? It isn't. We didn't start it, we can't stop it.

During the 1970's nobel prize pinheads
worried that global cooling was leading
to a new ice age, advocated aerial dispersal
of shredded black plastic over the polar caps
to melt them back.
Lately the same nobel knuckleheads
now want aerosols reintroduced to
combat global warming.

@Grace, Mt Pinatubo blew more
sulphur dioxide, nitric oxide, carbon monoxide,
and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
in 72 hours as mankind did since the
advent of the industrial revolution.
Krakatoa dwarfed Pinatubo.

Our annual output is a gnat's fart
by comparison.
What's naive is to even link thought
with any of the eco-propagandaists.

This is human arrogance and hubris on display. Originally Posted by anaximander

that's one good example with Mt. Pinatubo.

Another one's with Mt. St. Helens in comparison with the chemical companies in Washington State in terms of air pollution.

So you think using poetic writing and throwing out High School grade science quantifies you as the anti-expert?

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/dataset.php

Pray do, oh great Einstein of Eccie, amaze us with your years of research and data to back up your pompous diatribe. If you want to use pictures or display your Nobel price to back up it, please entertain us. Originally Posted by Sa_artman

That data set doesn't prove anything other than telling the state of the climate which is either warming or cooling at any given period. It doesn't tell you if the cause is man-made or helio-centric.

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. . . .

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyso...f07_index.html Originally Posted by I B Hankering

good link to a climate heretic

I had a "climatologist" explain to me the problem like this. First, he hates being called a climatologist and would rather be called an physical scientist. That is an aside.

The problem is that in order to make broad predictions based on past data, the data has to be standardized and accurate. Until digital thermometers were widely in use across the globe (about 40 years ago), the actual temperature and precipitation data was only accurate within a +/-.5 degree range. 40 years out of 6 billion is 0.000000006666667

so, the accurate sample size is so small that it is insignificant.
So, "climatologists" who needed to publish papers in order to get either a) jobs as professors, or b) jobs with the government or a think tank or c) a government grant basically make all sorts of wild and unproven assumptions about past data. Then they make all sorts of speculative theories about what the causes are and what will happen in the future.

This is similar to looking at a stock for Coca - Cola, which has been in business for over 100 years and looking at what the stock does for about 30 minutes, then making broad predictions about what will happen in the next 100 years to Coca-Cola stock.

For the most part, the climatologists are just self serving in the vein that Adam Smith would have liked. They seek self preservation and prosperity and if selling the "hot" stock tip of the week is their method, caveat emptor.


\

Since when does the observed physical history
have to be defended?

Yeah it's grade school from like 30 years ago.
Now its freshman 101 college level.
Which is still pathetic for you because
you evidently understand neither.

My proof will be in the veracity of my answer.
Invariably you must find the truth on your own.

So ask.

I think you've been watching too much 'V". Your vapid attempts at eloquence are laughable at best and are poorly derivative.
If one is to talk 'observed', then clearly those actually observing the 'physical' changes would like a word with you and your armchair science. Google away faux Fawkes, you seem intent on trying to disprove with your mighty searches and a dog eared copy of Science for Dummies, what those with bigger brains than you have already proven.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2304...idc-extent.htm

You may continue to put you head in the sand and talk out your ass, maybe it will come across less pompous. Nothing short of your personal research spent months abroad, compiled and validated would prove your case...that or a picture of your Noble Prize.

Since when does the observed physical history
have to be defended?

Yeah it's grade school from like 30 years ago.
Now its freshman 101 college level.
Which is still pathetic for you because
you evidently understand neither.

My proof will be in the veracity of my answer.
Invariably you must find the truth on your own.

So ask. Originally Posted by anaximander

So what are you doing to end global warming, Sa?