Life In 19x19

Bill Spight wrote:

Magicwand wrote:Scientist now admit that their theory on global warming is wrong...
Everyone is fooled by politic.....

sorry for brining this thread back to life.

Yes, things have gotten worse faster than original projections.

Links?

Magicwand wrote:

p2501 wrote:

Magicwand wrote:Scientist now admit that their theory on global warming is wrong...
Everyone is fooled by politic.....

sorry for brining this thread back to life.

source/link?

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/09/2 ... t-we-lied/

mrconservative? Really? In that case you could have linked to foxnews and alike directly.

p2501 wrote:mrconservative? Really? In that case you could have linked to foxnews and alike directly.

Yeah, its really funny.
I also like how the no-global-warming articles usually cite like 0.5 scientist and 78 right-wing politicians as support sources, heh.

Wikipedia is not a solid source, but I think in this case it has it pegged:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.

Right-wingers try so many ways to put a different spin on it, its like watching a Fellini movie.

And anyways - one just has to look out the window, or listen to the new (even the conservative ones) if one has any doubts. It is really hard for me to understand how can there be a block of local interests which tries to deny it.

Somebody, please tell me MW is joking.

Please?!?

The scientific consensus is clear that climate change is real, and most of it is caused by human pollution.

TheBigH wrote:The scientific consensus is clear that climate change is real, and most of it is caused by human pollution.

where is the evidence???
this year average global temperature went down. polar ice increased 60% more than last year.
there are probably 100 + factores that contribute to climate change and i am not sure if pollution plays .1% of that change.
It is all politic and there is no evidence.

Magicwand wrote:

TheBigH wrote:The scientific consensus is clear that climate change is real, and most of it is caused by human pollution.

where is the evidence???
this year average global temperature went down. polar ice increased 60% more than last year.
there are probably 100 + factores that contribute to climate change and i am not sure if pollution plays .1% of that change.
It is all politic and there is no evidence.

You and Daily Mail are really very politically unbiased, no? Nothing but pure science, no politics at all...

Well, here is the composite of how the North Pole ice behaves over the years.
Multi-year Arctic Sea Ice

You will notice that there have always been peaks and valleys in the chart from year to year, but its the overall trend that matters. You can clearly see that the peaks are getting progressively lower and the valleys progressively deeper - and this is why they call it 'global warming' (a very unfortunate name, if you ask me) and why it is an ongoing process and cannot always be proven by a single year-to-year data points. You study math, you should know how it works.

The fact that we just seem to happen to have another hiccup between 2012 and 2013 the right-wing press is fast to pounce on with 'global cooling now, ha ha ha' like bunch of morons, completely ignoring the trend which has been presented, documented, and proven over the past few decades. Not politicized at all, right? Give me a break... and get some education.

This graphic from NSIDC shows what absolute bunk this claim of 60% recovery in arctic sea ice is; it's the last two points of the graph:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files ... gure31.png

This one illustrates humorously the difference between realists and science deniers:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Sk ... istsv3.gif

TheBigH wrote:This one illustrates humorously the difference between realists and science deniers:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Sk ... istsv3.gif

Heh... this is cool! Thanks.

Magicwand wrote:

p2501 wrote:

Magicwand wrote:Scientist now admit that their theory on global warming is wrong...
Everyone is fooled by politic.....

sorry for brining this thread back to life.

source/link?

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/09/2 ... t-we-lied/

[sarcasm]
It's so very important to pay attention to the Daily Mail and other sites controlled by Rupert Murdoch (like this one: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/gl ... 6720435324).

Because he's so rich, he must be smarter than everyone else and he knows much more about everything than scientists do! We're so lucky that he altruistically uses his worldwide media assets to spread the good message about how we're being manipulated by scientists with a communist agenda. He's a real hero. A freedom fighter (but not a commie one, of course!).

If he chose to, he could exploit his media control for the benefit of his investments in the fossil fuel industry, but he wouldn't do that, because he's a good and honest man. We can prove he's a good and honest man because he could make more money by doing that, but he doesn't! We know for sure that he doesn't because he's a good and honest man.

Also, I don't like the idea that climate change could be real and that I might have to change my lifestyle! Those scientists are real downers. Can you believe they tried to say that I was descended from monkeys? I find that incredibly offensive and presumptuous! It's great that good old Rupert is making those pesky scientists go away so that I can get back to eating polar bear foie gras in my RV!

Another important fact. We have a cure for cancer that's 100% effective! Because it's so simple, it has no side effects! But the government doesn't want you to know about it!!1

Oh yes, link! http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article ... -has-been/

I think it must be absolutely true because it's on the internet, but I'll just double check with Rupert first, OK?
[/sarcasm]

I am surprised that so many ppl have different view than mine.
views are not only different it is a religion to them.
there are many facts and evidences that goes against their belief but will not hear or consider any.

i guess that is typical of liberls so not surprised.

mybestthrowaway: your sarcasm was meant to ridicule my belief..then you have failed. since english is my second language i really didnt understand anything you wrote. next time try something i might understand.

Magicwand wrote:I am surprised that so many ppl have different view than mine.
views are not only different it is a religion to them.
there are many facts and evidences that goes against their belief but will not hear or consider any.

i guess that is typical of liberls so not surprised.

Sorry, the main science denialists in the US are conservatives, at least for the past several decades.

Magicwand wrote:I am surprised that so many ppl have different view than mine.
views are not only different it is a religion to them.
there are many facts and evidences that goes against their belief but will not hear or consider any.

i guess that is typical of liberls so not surprised.

mybestthrowaway: your sarcasm was meant to ridicule my belief..then you have failed. since english is my second language i really didnt understand anything you wrote. next time try something i might understand.

Do you know my biggest problem with your post? That you think the answer to a scientific question is a political position. This attitude being so prevalent in your country is deeply worrying to me.

Magicwand wrote:mybestthrowaway: your sarcasm was meant to ridicule my belief..then you have failed. since english is my second language i really didnt understand anything you wrote. next time try something i might understand.

Really Magicwand? you're going to claim ignorance of the English language while trying to argue a point?

I was assuming that you just had trouble expressing yourself in English, but you at least were capable of understanding it.
Why are we even discussing this if you aren't in a position to understand what is being said?

And how can you be sure you understand the articles that you have linked? or that others have linked?

SoDesuNe wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:Your source took a 4 year old RT newscast and pasted a new date on it.

This happened in 2009, and was heavily investigated. To quote wikipedia:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.

Link? : D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... ontroversy

The quote is from the intro of the section "Inquiries and reports".