Heh. I think there are people on both sides of the issue would be willing to cut their dicks off to prove that they don't have one.
/facepalm
It simply means they await more evidence.
global warming. HAHA
What does that have to do with what I said?
Maybe its time to say even if a slightly growing number of scientists are questioning the idea of the existence of man made global warming, THEY ARE NOT CONCLUDING THAT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST. It simply means they await more evidence.
But to some extent we can expect this only temporary doubt, for the past number of years, we have been experiencing a very low point in the number of sunspots. And since the number of sunspots correlates in a highly positive manner with net solar output, a large increase in sunspots in the near future may answer the debate to the total dismay of those in the denier camp.
But for now, with the low sunspot count, the earth is now seemingly cooling.
BUT FOR HOW LONG?
seems you believe in it, which is funny.
You and the other deniers will be brought up on blashphemy charges during these years of inquisition.
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought."
There can be no denying that there has been no warming the past 15 years, and yet you're doubling down on the lie. Fascinating stance, think we won't call your bluff?
AGW and ACC is dead.
Maybe its time to say even if a slightly growing number of scientists are questioning the idea of the existence of man made global warming, THEY ARE NOT CONCLUDING THAT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST. It simply means they await more evidence.
But to some extent we can expect this only temporary doubt, for the past number of years, we have been experiencing a very low point in the number of sunspots. And since the number of sunspots correlates in a highly positive manner with net solar output, a large increase in sunspots in the near future may answer the debate to the total dismay of those in the denier camp.
But for now, with the low sunspot count, the earth is now seemingly cooling.
BUT FOR HOW LONG?
Excuse me? When you say there can be no denying that the earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, and do so without documentation, I can only assume you are the fool won is a believer. I simply quoted a part of the article that claims global warming is real that was posted to say it is not. I have no idea myself what the real facts are. I thought it was rather stupendously stupid to put forward a case where your citation denies your claim.
Excuse me? When you say there can be no denying that the earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, and do so without documentation, I can only assume you are the fool won is a believer.
The PDO is a very solid scientific reason why there has been no warming for the "past 15 years". To double down on a claim that it has not only warmed, but MORE QUICKLY is really absurd.I simply quoted a part of the article that claims global warming is real that was posted to say it is not. I have no idea myself what the real facts are. I thought it was rather stupendously stupid to put forward a case where your citation denies your claim.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Or read my post about him.
TWO bombshells in the same day completely destroying the MMGW scam. And yet, Moonie, you cling to it like a bible...
A little knowledge is a terrible thing. What you folks who happen to not be well versed in climate change are missing is that the evidence they are talking about here isn't the totality of climate change evidence... not even close. Ice cores show climate change very clearly, and there's no suburban development in Antarctica.
Actually even that is questionable. The stations where the physical weathers stations exist in the artic are in fact habitated by people and these weather stations have grown significantly over the last several decades.
Even if the stations WERE enough to influence local climate within the radius that testing is done in, it wouldn't matter. The chemistry locked into the ice depends on global temperature average, not local.
ANd those ice cores that are taken out show many warming periods, but mostly a much colder(ice age) place. The cores prove little.
You know, even if the climate isn't being warmed by our actions, there are other good things about changing our relationship with the environment. We do affect the environment we live in. Pollution can cause all sorts of problems, like acid rain, smog, tainted water, etc...
Moving away from oil also has other benefits, as we can say FU to the ME. Diversification of our transportation fuels also has the benefit of not being stuck if one source should suddenly dry up (either because of economic pissing contests or difficulty in procuring more).
And cleaner energies, like solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear, give the benefit of not creating so much air and water pollution - why shit on the places we live?
But I'm sure we'll all ignore the practical and go back to driving our Canyoneros and doing whatever the hell we want, because we can do whatever the hell we want, because we pay for our resources and there are no externalities that aren't immediately apparent to our behavior. Yeehah!
Edit:
To clarify, I'm not saying we should bankrupt ourselves in the process, but we should look at what we're doing and invest in new technologies.
Not true. They prove that:
a) The current rate of warming is extremely unusual
b) The warming we have experienced since the start of the industrial revolution coincides with our greenhouse gas emissions. If the physical properties of greenhouse gases were not responsible, it would only because God said "I will make it so CO2 no longer retains energy, but instead cause the expected change to happen, just to mess with these humans".
That the oceans level is rising - again indisputable. What made the oceans rise? Magic?
According to that logic, MMGW started 21 thousand years ago.
Not true. They prove that:
a) The current rate of warming is extremely unusual
b) The warming we have experienced since the start of the industrial revolution coincides with our greenhouse gas emissions. If the physical properties of greenhouse gases were not responsible, it would only be because God said "I will make it so CO2 no longer retains energy, but I will STILL cause the expected change to happen, just to mess with these humans".