Global warming debunked »
Posted by: Coop666 1 year, 3 months ago772 Comments Report this Story
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Read Full Story at stuff.co.nz
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 772
-
-
100%
NoSpinDave1 year, 3 months ago
Somewhere I fee like sirens, buzzers, and alarms are going off all over Neophiles house as they usually do when someone dares to post an article debunking global warming....lol.
On a serious note, great article!
Reply-
0%
kctrixter1 year, 3 months ago
Hi luv: it is good to see you posting more, I have always enjoyed your post, when you were quiet I missed your sense of humor and the intelligence you brought to your side of things.
Reply-
100%
NoSpinDave1 year, 3 months ago
OK, final proof positive this site is rigged! Validity under dispute? How can you dispute the validity of something that has never been proven or debunked with any certainty!
Conservatives file disputes about global warming stories all the time here...NEVER with any results. Ohh, but a liberal disputs a story debunking global warming and the story is labeled under dispute WITHIN TWO HOURS of it even being posted!
Thsi is such BS. The liberals running Libscape better stop being so biased or they are going to have a site with only one group of people participating.......which will be the death of a promising site.
UNBELIEVEABLE!
Reply-
50%
AntiNeoCon1 year, 3 months ago
You my friend are overlooking the NeoCon mentallity. Just look at the comments they make here, would you buy a used car from any of them?? Their motto is, "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." They are not smart enough to figure that if you continue to screw up the environment things will change. They don't care about people, just profits.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
To oversimplify the need for a reduction of fossil fuel consumption to global warming is myopic since:
(1) dinitrogen pentoxide, sulfur trioxide, and carbon dioxide combustion byproducts harm the environment by precipitating as acid rain.
(2) fossil fuels are a nonrenewable resource, which necessitates research into alternative energy sources.
(3) our reliance on fossil fuels harms our national security as it ties us politically, economically, and militarily to the regions from which oil is extracted, some of which are the most volatile parts of the world
(4) prolonged inhalation of pollutants, smog, and other airborne particles has been shown to exacerbate respiratory illnesses (asthma, lung cancer, allergies, etc.)
Whatever your reasons (global warming or not), fossil fuel consumption needs to be reduced. I'm baffled by those who support strong measures to protect our national security, yet oppose strong measures to promote energy independence.
Reply-
-
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
1) Drilling in ANWR does NOT reduce our dependence on nonrenewable fossil fuels AT ALL, which makes your proposal a nonviable long-term energy policy.
2) Drilling in ANWR does NOT address the other problems associated with fossil fuel combustion, including points (1) harmful acid rain and (4) adverse effects to respiratory health.
3) You're either foolish or severely misinformed if you believe opening ANWR to drilling will grant the U.S. energy independence. A Dept of Interior study projected that ANWR could produce 1.4 million barrels of oil per day, which would increase U.S. production by ~25%.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm
However, that is still INSUFFICIENT to wean the U.S. from 10.1 million barrels per day which the U.S. must import from other countries, including the 5.6 million barrels per day we import from OPEC.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil...
It's time for you to get your facts straight.
Reply -
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
4) Additionally, you seem to forget that oil production will eventually decline as companies struggle to discover profitably recoverable sources of oil. So even with ANWR open to drilling, total U.S. oil production may not be boosted significantly at all.
5) Competition from developing, oil-hungry countries, like China and India, will make it even more difficult to secure contracts for oil imports as other nations will begin turning to China and India, instead of the U.S. as their primary customers for oil. China has ALREADY inked deals with 2 OPEC countries (Venezuela & Iran) as well as with Russia.
6) Compounding the effect of increased market competition is a belligerent, internationally unpopular neocon foreign policy that has alienated and destabilized the international community--particularly those countries sitting on the richest oil fields: Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
And yet, either out of incredible naivete, gross misinformation, or ideological obstinance, you persist in the belief that drilling in ANWR will fix all of these problems?
Pathetic.
In addition, I find it laughable that by your screen name you claim to be "nospin," yet every biased argument and unsubstantiated "fact" you post seems to do just that.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago
"How can you dispute the validity of something that has never been proven or debunked with any certainty!"
You are parroting talking points that have NO SCIENTIFIC basis. The science is in, the facts are no longer in dispute except politically.
The fact that the story is headlined with "debunked" is proof it is not a valid story. A weather man spouts off with no supporting research or facts to some obscure little newpaper and it becomes "Global Warming debunked"? LOL!!
This should not be a left or right political issue, but the talking heads of screech radio have politicized it to the point where if you do not disagree with the science, you are not a good Republican.
When they start insisting the sun rotates around a flat earth will you also defend that nonsense because fux news and limpjaw says it is true?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Reply-
0%
Aidenag1 year, 3 months ago
Actually even foxnews believes in global warming now. Rupert Murdoch is changing the programming to reflect the new scientific evidence. He even bought a hybrid and is making Foxnews a carbon nuetral corporation with zero footprint.
The only people still trying to debunk global warming are the people that don't believe in evolution and think man walked the earth with dinosaurs, and that the grand canyon is only 6,000 years old...
Reply-
0%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
Actually even foxnews believes in global warming now. Rupert Murdoch is changing the programming to reflect the new scientific evidence.
Actually that's a PR move. I'm surprised you didn't see that.
Reply-
0%
Aidenag1 year, 3 months ago
PR move or not, he said he believes in it, and foxnews will reflect that from now on.
I'm content either way. It leaves only 2 options, he either is telling the truth and believes in science, or he is lying through his teeth, and is a total sellout..
Either way its win win for everyone who can't stand foxnews :)
Reply-
-
-
71%
scriblerus11 year, 3 months ago
The really sad thing about it is that these dunderheaded deniers aren't even aware they're being schtooped. Where's the fun in that?
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 3 months ago
** GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS **
* We can't do anything about climate change
* The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
* We can't trust computer models of climate
* They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
* It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
* It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
* Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
* It's all down to cosmic rays
* CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
* Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
* The oceans are cooling
* The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
* Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
* Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
* Mars and Pluto are warming too
* Many leading scientists question climate change
* It's all a conspiracy
* Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth
* Polar bear numbers are increasing
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/ear...
Reply-
100%
RickyDawkins1 year, 3 months ago
The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict.
But the reason the scientists think the way they do is because of the vast and growing body of evidence. A study in 2004 looked at the abstracts of nearly 1000 scientific papers containing the term "global climate change" published in the previous decade. Not one rejected the consensus position. One critic promptly claimed this study was wrong; but later quietly withdrew the claim.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/ear...
Reply-
100%
JackofallChems1 year, 3 months ago
One of my degrees is in a specialty field (polymer science) that was dominated by a guy named Flory. He was very abrupt and abrasive with those that disagreed publicly with his academic research into the behavior and matheatical modeling of polymers, and was correct in virtually every instance where there was a 'majority concensus' of academics that disagreed with his theories. It apparently got so bad that there was a sort of academic 'lynch mob' that ganged up on him at one conference and tried their best to make him look like he was wrong about something, with all the associated hype and press releases they could muster. In the end, Flory was still correct, but was quite hurt about the whole incident and it pretty much took all the fun out of research for him. The point, of course, is that a majority vote among scientists is about as frivolous a measure of scientific analyses as you can get. You need more substance than 'majority rule' or you're just blathering.
Reply-
0%
JackofallChems1 year, 3 months ago
Oh, and as for this Auer guy, let's put his comments in perspective. It's kind of like a bunch of organic chemists all agreeing based on difficult and hard to analyze lab data that a particular chemical reaction can cause big problems, and a physical chemist coming by later and making a public statement that the organic chemists should learn how to work a calculator before shooting off their mouths - and that their theories are so absurd that they should have been able to figure it out on the back of an envelope over lunch. Organic chemists aren't well known for being as good at math as physical chemists, and physical chemists aren't well known for calculating out simple (or, in many cases, relevant) chemical systems, and tend to drop by only to rain on other people's parades when there shouldn't be a parade at all. This climatology-meteorology pecking order thing appears to be the same, or, even more embarassingly for the climatologists, reversed. Auer's math is quite correct.
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 3 months ago
As so many people that are opponents of human influenced global warming are quick to say, there is a lot of play in the system.
His math might be correct, far be it from me to try and say it isn't my field is history, but I do know that if you put poor data or data that is skewed in one direction, you will get poor data out of the equation.
Reply-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
Bkumm: if you put poor data or data that is skewed in one direction, you will get poor data out of the equation.
Now you know exactly how the IPCC clowns are using their phony climate models to try and prove that gorbal warming is caused by man. Most real active scientists hav seen that the global climate change actually has been pretty static for about 20 years once the bias for location of the sensors is taken into account and the missing data from cold locations, such as Siberia and other parts of Russia are added back in.
And once the sun is put back into them in the correct proportions, the results show an anticipated coolin coming up, mayb big enough to cause a mini ice age....starting in about 5-10 years....
Reply
-
-
-
0%
DrHansZarkov1 year, 3 months ago
JackofallChems,
You make a good point here! You know when Robert Goddard told other scientists that man would one day send a projectile (not even a manned capsule mind you) to the moon, other scientists laughed at him. He was ridiculed so much that he became extremely reclusive. Today the NASA's Goddard Space Center is named after him.
Reply -
100%
blackandwhitekitty1 year, 3 months ago
Thanks for your comments.
Voting is for politics, not science. Consensus is meaningless in science. Facts, theories consistent with the known facts, and simple ideas like causality form the substance of good science.
The underlying problem is that scientists are human and subject to a whole bunch of faults, like 1) finding safety in a crowd, 2) using intuition when they don't know or understand all the facts (especially in relevant and related diciplines outside their own) and 3) trusting colleagues who are willing to break the rules of logic.
Generally, everyone has to learn to be far more skeptical of scientists than they are now. I say this as a scientist and engineer.
Reply
-
-
0%
ramblingwreck1 year, 3 months ago
"The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes."
Consensus does not equate to FACT and indeed indicates that there are more than a few (with equal credentials) that disagree. At one time, the consensus among "experts" wast that the world is flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that global cooling was a problem (if you want more current "scientific" thinking), and the list goes on and on.
"Global warming" discussions inevitably turn in to bouts of "my expert can beat your expert", with nothing being resolved. The simple truth is that it makes sense to pursue alternative energy sources (that may be cleaner) simply because there is a finite amount of fossil fuel available.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 3 months ago
Hmm. Interesting point guys. However, there is also a majority science opinion of many things which you guys agree with. Like for example 99 percent of scientists believe that the sky is blue!
99 Percent of scientists agree that the sun is YELLOW.
In comparison 90 Percent of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. So, yes, you guys are making a point, IT JUST ISN'T A GOOD ONE!
Reply-
50%
rockman0691 year, 3 months ago
Actually Ricky, neither one of those statements that the sky is blue or the sun is yellow is correct. The sun emits all wavelengths, but the majority are yellow, and the sky reflects shorter wavelength light back to us easier than longer wavelength light.
But I digress.... :^)
See what happens with "scientific" fact?
Reply-
75%
RickyDawkins1 year, 3 months ago
So you think the sky is not blue, and the sun is not yellow?
What color does the Sun look like to you? Oh wise one? Look at the sky, What color is the sky? BLUE?
Reply
-
-
-
100%
Bkumm1 year, 3 months ago
Okay, you're right. Science isn't about consensus. It is about fact. The facts are pretty clear and the majority of scientists agree with the facts. Now, do they agree on all of the points? Of course not. It is very similar to the way that most biologists (though not all, which boggles my mind) think that evolution is the way that life came into the various forms that now occupy this planet. However, not all of them agree on how those various forms evolved.
Reply -
0%
clearminded1 year, 3 months ago
One additional note to the world is flat comment: Yes that was absolutely the case, but if I remember correctly, their was a religious component to this as well. It was heresy to think otherwise. I believe we have the same thing happening right now with the humanist 'green' religion and the way they treat any dissenters as heretics.
Reply
-
-
0%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
A study in 2004 looked at the abstracts of nearly 1000 scientific papers containing the term "global climate change" published in the previous decade. Not one rejected the consensus position.
So 1000 reports containing the term "global climate change" were in consensus that the global climate changesâ;¦â;¦â;¦â;¦how odd
There is "consensus" that global climate changes, hot to cold to hot. There is no "consensus" on the causes effects or the magnitude of the changes.
Reply -
0%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
RickyDawkins Said:
The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes.
Humm overwhelming consensus hummmmmmmmm
As I recall there was a world wide overwhelming consensus that Saddam had WMDs
So was the "overwhelming consensus" correct?
As I recall there was a world wide overwhelming consensus that the world was flat
As I recall there was a world wide overwhelming consensus that the sun orbited earth
As I recall there was a world wide overwhelming consensus that slavery was a good thing
Are ya starting to see that overwhelming consensus does not equal fact?
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 3 months ago
Hmm. Interesting point guys. However, there is also a majority science opinion of many things which you guys agree with. Like for example 99 percent of scientists believe that the sky is blue!
99 Percent of scientists agree that the sun is YELLOW.
In comparison 90 Percent of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. So, yes, you guys are making a point, IT JUST ISN'T A GOOD ONE!
Reply
-
-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
rickyDawkins: The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus....
In fact, the whole IPCC consensus process is perhaps the best example of what you seem to be advocating as "democratization of science".
Let me try to explain the rules of democratic consensus science: your personal positions and recommendations on climate policy are obviously a minority view. The majority has clearly other ideas - and the majority is the scientific consensus.
Never mind who's right or wrong - only numbers count: There can be little doubt that 130 odd government officials will rubber-stamp the WGIII report in May, just as they did with WGI and WGII.
The point is not whether the policies and economic interventions advocated by the IPCC are right or wrong - the whole point of consensus science is that they represent the view of the majority. And anyone who doesn't like what the majority says is a dangerous sceptic who should not be given any airtime.
Reply-
50%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
The point is not whether the policies and economic interventions advocated by the IPCC are right or wrong - the whole point of consensus science is that they represent the view of the majority. And anyone who doesn't like what the majority says is a dangerous sceptic who should not be given any airtime.
If you accept that the majority is right on WGI and WGII, you should accept that the majority is also right on WGIII. After all, these are the rules of consensus science. No cherry-picking of favorite papers, no complaints about contradictions or ignored issues.
Reply-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
I'm afraid the IPCC consensus game is truely over. Its rules won't be changed until governments begin to realise that they have effectively surrendered their decision-making process to a select group of unelected and unaccountable scientists who are now in charge of and controll a monopoly view on green policies - on a global level.
Thus, when it comes to the policies and economics of climate change, Plato's dream of the academic elites controlling and running the world is close to being realised as a nightmarish reality.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Bkumm1 year, 3 months ago
Actually, that is simply false. There were a few climatologists that did just that, however the consensus (here we go again) was that, at the time, there was simply not enough data to make a prediction.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
There are other sources if you don't find this one to your liking. I have found it to be generally reliable.
Reply-
0%
rockman0691 year, 3 months ago
I wonder if instead of calling it a consensus, it should be called a paradigm. Seems more accurate, IMO.
Science will always believe certain things, like the atom is the smallest divisible particle, only to detect quarks, muons, etc., etc.
Our scientific perspectives change with newer information and more accurate studies. Even now we accept many physical laws based on daily, consistent occurrence, without truly understanding the ability or mechanism behind them all.
Reply -
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
Bkumm: There were a few climatologists that did just that, however the consensus...
Excpet that those were the scientist at NOAA and the NAS who are the same agencies quoted often nowadays on global warming.....btw....their predictions about global cooling are much more likely to come true in a few short years than any man made global warming....just look at the frost line in Florida which has moved more south every year for the last decade....
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Monkey_Scout1 year, 3 months ago
It can cause an ice age anywhere. The reason the last one was cause was because of the change in water currents. Warm water currents melted the ice in the north, producing more freshwater. More freshwater = water vapor = snow. Snow went South and next thing you know, theres an ice age.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 3 months ago
Interesting point guys. However, there is also a majority science opinion of many things which you guys agree with. Like for example 99 percent of scientists believe that the sky is blue!
99 Percent of scientists agree that the sun is YELLOW.
In comparison 90 Percent of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. So, yes, you guys are making a point, IT JUST ISN'T A GOOD ONE!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
el-jefe1 year, 3 months ago
First, what does "debunk global warming" mean? Debunking the notion that the earths climate heats up and cools down in a major way over the years? I certainly don't dispute that. Reference the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, not to mention several real Ice Ages and the fact that Antarctica used to have a subtropical climate millions of years ago.
Debunking the notion that the earth is heating up right now? I don't know that's really nailed down yet (reference falsified climate data in several refereed journals), but it seems likely, even probable to me.
Debunking the notion that the present warming trend is caused by man-made gasses? Ah, you got me. I've seen absolutely no proof of that at all, unless you count proof by assertion. I've seen a sucession of climate models that are touted as scientific PROOF that man-made global warming is occurring. Problem is, none of these models can account for the MWP or the LIA mentioned earlier.
Reply-
0%
MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago
Well now, you should take your vast scientific knowledge and go straighten out those silly PHDs that have arrived at a different conclusion. Apparently the IPCC scientists didn't notice that there was a problem with the data and you did.
Reply-
-
0%
MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago
The ol' shoot the messenger right wing smear tactic ay?
"Many view PHD as standing for post hole digger"? Who is the "many" that think that, jealous uneducated rednecks? And what is the reason they are viewed that way? Do you know each and every PHD in every academic discipline?
I will agree that having a PHD doesn't automatically make someone right, but when a vast majority of PHDs in one particular study agree on the studies conclusions...well I'll take their word waaaay before some talking head political hack with a moneyed interest in seeing them wrong.
Reply-
-
71%
PsychoHosebeast1 year, 3 months ago
And yet it appears you've done so much with yours... maybe you can give him some pointers.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
DrHansZarkov1 year, 3 months ago
MonkeyBiz,
If you think PhD's never make mistakes then consider the Mars Climate Orbiter, which NASA launched in 1998 study the Martian water vapor and carbon dioxide budget to "search for evidence of long-term and episodic climate changes." You proably remember hearing about this because it was the one that burned up in the Martian atmosphere because of a confusion between standard and metric units. Look who headed that project, global climatologists looking who were looking for evidence of global warming.
Besides there are PhD's who disagree with global warming, so you really don't have any point.
Heres a link for the Mars Climate Orbiter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
DRHANZ:
"If you think PhD's never make mistakes then consider the Mars Climate Orbiter...Look who headed that project, global climatologists looking who were looking for evidence of global warming."
You think climatologists--instead of aeronautical engineers and pilots--were responsible for piloting a multimillion dollar spacecraft to Mars?
Um, no. The climatologists were merely interested in the data the orbiter would have collected, not in piloting the spacecraft to Mars. You've scapegoated the wrong people.
Reply -
0%
quackpot1 year, 3 months ago
To suggest that a climatologist is the one that did the aeronuatical engineering is absurd.
Reply
-
-
0%
libsRfunny1 year, 3 months ago
"Apparently the IPCC scientists didn't notice that there was a problem with the data and you did."
You must have forgotton about Dr. Richard Lindzen and many, many others who forced the IPCC to remove their names from the "report" after seeing what a disgrace it was to their scientific research.
Reply-
0%
blackandwhitekitty1 year, 3 months ago
Can you supply a list of the heros who insisted that their names be removed? We should track these critical thinkers, and weigh their opinions more highly in the future.
Reply -
-
-
100%
MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago
Lindzen is a PAID hack of the oil industry. Who are these many others? I'll tell you who they are, they are rhetorical devices used to try and discredit a legitimate scientific study that is very inconvenient for powerful people that are currently running the Repug party and our government.
If the IPCC study were debunkable, young turks looking to make their scientific reputations and earn their PHDs would be all over it like white on rice. They could earn some major cash from the oil industry and gain a large measure of fame while they were at it.
Reply
-
-
100%
bigG1 year, 3 months ago
I am not certain which side is right or wrong about Global Warming causation, but it would seem to me to be the smart move would be to "err on the side of life". Like millions of them.
Funny how the opposition to this happens to be rife with the same people who want to "err on the side of life" on other issues, like stem cell research and abortion.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
MonkeyBiz:
Well now, you should take your vast scientific knowledge and go straighten out those silly PHDs that have arrived at a different conclusion. Apparently the IPCC scientists didn't notice that there was a problem with the data and you did.
Actually that has happened many times before to these IPCC PHD scam artists.....they used phony data and came up with bad conclusions until someone else noticed and debunked their scam....
Reply-
0%
MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago
"Actually that has happened many times before to these IPCC PHD scam artists....."
Well I'll expect you to provide several pages of cut and paste providing some "proof" of all these "many times" there was a valid debunking. Weathermen speaking to farmers is not actually a legitimate debunking to any but the most ardent deniers of reality.
I have asked before for a legitimate PEER reviewed study that disputes the IPCC findings, yet all you can provide is unsubstantiated claims that the findings have been phonied up and disputed.
Where's the beef?!?
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
CrazyRay1 year, 3 months ago
" The only people still trying to debunk global warming are the people that don't believe in evolution and think man walked the earth with dinosaurs..."
Not exactly, people that recognize the Earth's true age can see several severe climate shifts during it's existence. Nothing can really be proven that this isn't a shift towards hotter weather as we did just come out of an ice age. In fact, this has been the longest time period of "cold" weather (it's on the low end of the temp. charts) that the Earth has consistently had.
...and for ******s and giggles, here's one of those religious nuts:
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/dinosau...
Reply-
100%
rockman0691 year, 3 months ago
Interesting article. Thanks for the link. About as true (or under dispute) as the rest of this stuff, but interesting nonetheless.
Reply
-
-
100%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
The only people still trying to debunk global warming are the people that don't believe in evolution and think man walked the earth with dinosaurs, and that the grand canyon is only 6,000 years old...
Sorry once again your wrong. Its global warming CAUSED Primarily by man that is in dispute.
People who question global warming IS CAUSED Primarily by man believe that the earth temps cycle from hot to cold, they sight things like the ice age, that there is evidence that, at one point in time the California desert was an ocean floor, oil deposits are found off shore indicating that at some time what is now ocean was once land and what is now land was ocean. They site things like the earth wobbles and that the magnetic poles have changed north to south several times.
Any answers? I gots lotts of questions.
Reply-
0%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
They site things that are not in the "models" that have an enormous effect on global temps fluctuations things like Volcano's and ask why they are not included? The usual answer is "The science is in, the facts are no longer in dispute" (BTW that's a dodge) They ask questions from the chicken little alarmist that site trends 20,30,50 and 100 years long knowing that geologically that's a blink. They question why someone would say the ocean levels will rise 20 to 30 ft worst-case scenario when the actual report states 20 to 30 CM.
Reply-
-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
Except global warming scammer who cite phony or inaccurate data....
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
INJEST:
"They site things that are not in the "models" that have an enormous effect on global temps fluctuations things like Volcano's and ask why they are not included?"
More CO2 is generated by humans than by volcanoes. Additionally, volcanoes spew particulates that block solar energy from reaching the earth, counteracting the absorption of the CO2 they spew.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/v...
"volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)!"
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
libsRfunny1 year, 3 months ago
Ah, don't waste your time with Aidenag or any of the other Al Gore worshippers. They have to believe they are right, just like they have to believe Bush lied and we lost the war we actually won in Iraq.
There are plenty of peer-reviewed sources debunking the "man made" global warming myths. But when one comes up, the Al Gore worshippers have to decry it as fake, which is why this story and the "Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary by the BBC are flagged as "disputed."
When you confront liberal ideaology with facts, the best they can do is attack the messenger. Basically, it all boils down to CO2 in the atmosphere. Even the most liberal studies say man is responsible for at most 3.7 percent of all CO2 in the atmosphere with water vapor responsible for at least 80 percent.
As the Earth heats up naturally, more water evaporates, causing an increase in CO2. Liberals cite the CO2 increase at the reason, but the warming occurs first.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
You are parroting talking points that have NO SCIENTIFIC basis. The science is in, the facts are no longer in dispute except politically.
Translation: we can't backup or prove anything so don't ask. We will shout you down. Proof, this article got a "The validity of this story is under dispute." With out even saying why.
How many articles have been posted here about say Plamegate stating without a doubt Cheney ordered the leaking of her name, months after it was known exactly who and how and why her name was leaked. Not one had a "The validity of this story is under dispute."
Reply-
0%
MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago
"Translation: we can't backup or prove anything so don't ask. We will shout you down."
I wrote that in plain english, it doesn't need an erroneous translation by you, and shouting down facts is a right wing tactic, not mine.
Why do you flat earthers still persist in the idiotic fallacy of "no proof?" There is overwhelming evidence that is recognized and accepted by an overwhelming number of scientists all over the globe.
I will apologize profusely to any and all if you or any other can provide a link to a PEER reviewed scientific study that disputes the findings of the IPCC. Just ONE peer reviewed study, not some weather man giving a speech to a bunch of farmers in New Zealand.
Reply-
100%
bgibbs071 year, 3 months ago
"and shouting down facts is a right wing tactic, not mine."
It's a tactic of all politicians, whether they be left right, up, or down. If a fact disagrees with what they say or do, they will do anything to try and make themselves look better.
Reply -
61%
blackandwhitekitty1 year, 3 months ago
Have you ever written a paper and submitted it for peer review? Did it get published? Have you ever served as a reviewer? Did you every write a negative review of a paper submitted for publication? Did your review prevent it from being published? My answer to each of these questions is yes.
I know a little about the way journals work today and about the review process.
First, while the system has flaws, it is probably the best we can do (short of paying for reviews).
For the purposes of the present discussion here is what you need to know. Journals are expensive to produce and essentially have to pay for themselves through subscriptions/society memberships. No paper, no source of income (or slow growth). This means the threshold for publication can be fairly low. Reviewers are somewhat reluctant to criticize colleagues' work knowing that their papers may be put in front of those who they criticized. Finally, reviewers may not fully understand all the paper's content.
Reply -
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
MonkeyBiz: There is overwhelming evidence...
It is only overwhelming to those who do not know the truth....
Reply
-
-
-
0%
tiredofnonsense1 year, 3 months ago
Prof Auer said that three quarters of the planet was ocean, and 95 percent of the greenhouse effect was governed by water vapour.
``Of that remaining 5 percent, only about 3.6 percent is governed by CO2 and when you break it down even further, studies have shown that the anthropogenic (man-made) contribution to CO2 versus the natural is about 3.2 percent.
``So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that's like 12c in $100.
``It's miniscule ... it's nothing,'' he said.
Please note thats "Professor" His credentials are printed later on, the information above is Scientific Fact.
Reply -
0%
clearminded1 year, 3 months ago
If you read the article, global warming is not being debunked, man's ability to significantly affect it is. That is really the point. I think all of us can look at measurements over time and see the climate changing. The question is why. The article points out that even though we may think very highly of ourselves as a species, man is not such a great influence in this world. This is where 'science' falls off the tracks in favor of the green's 'religious' hype. They think that man can do anything and is responsible for everything (like a god). The result is they think man (everybody but them) must make huge changes (to their liking and way of thinking). With the literal meaning aside, global warming has become nothing but a power and now money grab!!!
Reply-
100%
Jaydee401 year, 3 months ago
"global warming has become nothing but a power and now money grab!!!"
With oil companies spending billion of dollars trying to discredit global warming you have to ask if any of it is factual or even worth reading. The fact is our environment is under attack, natural disasters are far more common than ever before since we have been recording them. We must look to replace oil and coal as sources of energy as soon as possible and continue to reduce waste that ends up in land fill.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
